FCC Expected to Repeal Net Neutrality Rules in Vote Next Month

[jpietrzak8]

That's great, but who came up with the idea says nothing about the people who now OWN the equipment making it possible.

It isn't just the equipment. The very concept of the "Internet" was of a level network, where packets could be routed through any available path from sender to receiver. Thus, should any subset of the network become unavailable, the rest of the network could, by design, immediately take over for it. (This feature was designed to make the network adaptable to a situation such as a nuclear war, where infrastructure in one region of the country might be damaged or destroyed.)

Yes, commercial companies have taken over most of the equipment originally hosted at military or university sites. But they did so because the Internet was a good idea. The removal of net neutrality destroys the foundation of that good idea. Ultimately, the companies may turn a short-term profit, but they will destroy the long-term value of the network as a whole.

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.

Question: let's say the highway system becomes privatized. All highways in the United States are now toll roads. Regular drivers are all forced to stay in the rightmost lane; "platinum-level" drivers, on the other hand, are allowed entrance into the other lanes.

This will surely increase the profits of the companies that own the roads. However, I'm not sure it will make overall commercial sense, as average consumers will find it harder to travel from their homes to distant locations.

The reason why the Internet has created an entirely new economy is because it allows so many people to access so many sites. Restricting people from those sites reduces the actual value of the Internet as a whole.

Again this doesn't follow. Protecting the property rights of the companies who implement this the hardware that makes the internet possible

Again, false. These companies did not create the Internet, nor are they necessary to implement the Internet. They've simply taken over the Internet from the government.

Other countries can and do still run their own Internet facilities from the government itself. In fact, much of Europe has long since surpassed the United States in providing Internet to a broader swath of its citizenry at a higher speed. There are still plenty of suburban and rural regions here in Ohio which have only limited access to broadband speeds (or, like where my parents live, no broadband at all).

The commercial Internet companies in the United States do not have a stellar record of providing service across the country. I don't see why you think they have some special ability to do the job better than any alternative; all I can see is that they have done the job worse.

 

[Packers1958]

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.

People have become so dependent on internet service that it's part of the fabric of society. People aren't going to drop internet service because the price shot up. in many cities, there is no competition. Even if there was an upstart, the cost would be prohibitive as the big cable companies made sure of that by having city rules in place that forbid an upstart from using their cable to deliver a service. Over 70% of internet services to the American people are delivered by the 2 largest cable companies in the US. There is no competition, and there will be no competition. These 2 giants will now buy out what's left of any small regional providers, and in essence you will have just one choice west of the Mississippi River and one to the east.

 

[KPOM]

You can't possibly be this misinformed...are you? The FTC is the least litigious department of any oversight arm of the government. They are toothless.

And the merger block has everything to do with trying to shut down CNN. It has nothing to do with the consumer issues or business merits related to the deal.

The FTC takes a case-by-case approach.

And you are just parroting a CEO talking point if you think CNN has anything to do with it. People criticized Obama for not blocking NBC/Comcast. Maybe Obama let that one through because he likes MSNBC.
[doublepost=1511291886][/doublepost]

That's only if no other companies make the move too. The only reason T-Mobile changed was because if they didn't customers could go elsewhere to someone who didn't limit them. But if net neutrality goes away and everyone makes those changes which impact consumers negatively, backlash does nothing because you can't go elsewhere.

T-Mobile did that before there were any net neutrality rules.

 

[Z400Racer37]

Cellular service is a different animal. I can build a number of towers and cover tons of customers. It takes far more money to build out a traditional ISP to the home because you need many more permits, you have to run miles of fiber into neighborhoods, and you need to run the service into the home. With cellular service, there is really no cost to add 1 or 100 new people. You still have the same tower providing that service. With a home ISP, you have to run cable into the neighborhood and home of each of those new customers and that adds a real cost that can take months or years just to break even.

With home internet service, there are far higher costs involved. So to make it worth the investment to run fiber and cable into a neighborhood, they have to know they can acquire a good percentage of the customers in that area. But if those customers are already covered by someone else, it's a lot less likely they'll be able to acquire the number of people required to justify the investment. We've seen this with Google Fiber. They've stopped building out their offering because they can't get enough people to switch away from the competing service to theirs. If you can't get most people to switch, then you can't break even, and the investment just isn't worth it (and if you could get them to switch then the competition is going to go out of business and you're back to having just 1 provider in the area).

That's not true. I can easily imagine a world where there's a company which lays the cable, and charges any company who wants to use the cable a flat fee per month, or per unit of data, etc. As you said yourself, there is one provider who is fast, and one who is low, and the quality of service sucks in both cases much of the time. If that's the case, there are MANY customers in the area who are looking for fast, reliable, cheap internet, and there would be someone to provide it. If people don't want to invest or build their own miles of cables, they can lease it monthly from the company who specializes in that, and does it more efficiently than anyone else.

They'd be doing it already if the government didn't mandate regional monopolies to the cable companies who provide these services. The guy across the street from me can get FiOS, and I can't. It would cost next to nothing to run the line, but Verizon's not allowed to, so I'm stock with what I got, Net Neutrality or not. That's the real reason for the lack of competition and improvement. I'm stuck giving money to a company that isn't as good, because they're protected by a legal monopoly, when I would be giving it to the better company if they were allowed to grow.

Stagnant companies don't ever last in an actual free market.

 

[KdParker]

What company was pushed out of the market because they were unable to compete due to slow downloads. Not hypotheticals but specifics.

Wow....
They can't do that now because the playing field is leveled.

Once they roll back the protections you will have your pick of companies that will get pushed out of various markets.

 

[Solomani]

If Obama had passed laws that protected dogs from being abused as target practice by deranged animal torturers …. Trump would reverse that law.

Trump's agenda is to simply undo any legislation that Obama passed (no matter if they were good or bad).

 

[bizack]

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.

Sheep how? Repealing net neutrality is bad for everyone except the ISPs. It takes the fundamental idea that the internet is and should be free and accessible to all and destroys that idea. What citizens of the United States would be for this? The non-sheep? It's a crap deal, and it's a direct result of the Trump administration. There's no dancing around that.

 

[lkrupp]

Terrible. Get ready for ISPs to offer "basic", "premium" and "deluxe" internet packages.

"Want to stream online video? Try out our "deluxe" package, which allows full-speed access to Netflix, Amazon Video, and several other popular streaming sites! Want to game online? You'll need the "ultra deluxe gaming package" to access the most popular MMORPG services!"

I love it. Data hogs should pay more. Why should I have to subsidize some gamer or video addict who sits around 24/7/365 sucking up bandwidth?

 

[NomadicTy]

The same people screaming Trump will round up all non-whites, will cause the stock market to crash, and that we will be under the sphere of the Russians, are the same ones crying about this. There was no Net Neutrality before 2015. We survived DECADES without. If the ISP's go to crazy with it, people not use their services.

 

[BlazednSleepy]

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

Congratulations, you just played yourself. -___-

 

[iapplelove]

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.

Oh yeah, I know a few people who are only allowed to use VPNs for work related business.

 

[AZ63]

Terrible. Get ready for ISPs to offer "basic", "premium" and "deluxe" internet packages.

"Want to stream online video? Try out our "deluxe" package, which allows full-speed access to Netflix, Amazon Video, and several other popular streaming sites! Want to game online? You'll need the "ultra deluxe gaming package" to access the most popular MMORPG services!"

I feel like this already exists. I have Cox Internet and they seem to offer something like four levels with Gigablast being the fastest and all at varying costs.

 

[Packers1958]

Unelected officials having too much power. That's the real problem.

 

[oneMadRssn]

Posted this in another forum, but posting here as it is relevant:

This is a screenshot from a Mexican ISP, where there are no net neutrality regulations. Want to access Instagram? Need at least the Rock200 plan. This is our future in the US if the FCC continues its course.

Portugal too:

 

[Packers1958]

I feel like this already exists. I have Cox Internet and they seem to offer something like four levels with Gigablast being the fastest and all at varying costs.

Yes, but they don't control what you do with your service. They will now.

 

[shansoft]

This proposal restores FTC oversight of wireless companies. Also, the DOJ is blocking the proposed AT&T / Time-Warner deal, so it isn’t all light touch.
[doublepost=1511291487][/doublepost]
And if consumer response is harsh again they will drop it.

Sounds like you are reading or watching fake news.
The reason for DoJ to take action is all because Trump got beef with CNN and want DoJ to force AT&T sell them off.

Remember the FTC regains regulatory authority under this proposal. Obama exempted them from it.

What Obama did was correct and appointed the right person for the job to oversight this issue.

Trump on the other hand fill the FCC with swamp from wall streets / corporates just like the rest of the cabinets.
This is exactly what Trump administration want, limited information access for civilian, and let corporate gain control over utilities.

 

[KdParker]

If only somebody would have seen this coming...

Psst...EVERYBODY saw this coming, except you Trumpians.

I know right. Maybe their streaming being limited and more expensive might force them to look closer in the next election.

 

[BlazednSleepy]

I love it. Data hogs should pay more. Why should I have to subsidize some gamer or video addict who sits around 24/7/365 sucking up bandwidth?

His internet package argument isn't about Data. It's about ISP controlling what we as consumers have access to. You want access to Netflix without your speeds being throttled? You would have to pay for it. Now tell me, would you want to pay for each service or website you frequent on a daily basis just so it functions properly? Ya I doubt you would.

Open your eyes.

 

[Z400Racer37]

Question: If the underlying premise of your point is exposed for being woefully inadequate to a modern problem, is it logically effective to try and change the subject to another non sequitur?

PS - No one has nationalized anything in the US and if you don't like living under a government, please feel free to relocate to the Antarctic and start your own Free State. Things always turn out well for those.

The entire premise of your position is that it's more efficient, or otherwise better for consumers if there's Net Neutrality. True? Or False?

That's a non sequitur in your view?

Also, if you can control someone's property a little bit, whats to stop you from controlling it 100%, i.e. nationalizing it? What's the principle there? That is the context in which that statement was written, context dropper. I'm on to you.

Also, speaking of non sequiturs, who the hell mentioned anything about no government? Here I am talking about the government's proper function, the protection of an individual's life, and rights, including his property rights, and there you are over there spouting something off about living in the wilderness of Antarctica. So maybe you would like to explain how "the government's purpose is to protect individual rights," is logically followed by "let's all go live with no government in Antarctica."

Also, you seem to be avoiding my other response to you. I'll note that as an interesting tell.

 

[EightyTwenty]

GOOD!

We don't have a "neutral" internet today thanks to Big Tech monopolies like Google and Facebook.

I trust the ISPs far more than I do the Big Tech monopolies.

 

[lkrupp]

Sheep how? Repealing net neutrality is bad for everyone except the ISPs. It takes the fundamental idea that the internet is and should be free and accessible to all and destroys that idea. What citizens of the United States would be for this? The non-sheep? It's a crap deal, and it's a direct result of the Trump administration. There's no dancing around that.

But it’s NEVER been “free and accessible to all.” It may have been thought up by academics but private corporations had to build the infrastructure to allow access to it. Even if you consider it a utility you still pay for your water, your natural gas, your electricity, your trash pickup, your telephone service, all production, all delivery services built by private corporations to whom you pay money for the product they create, mine, process and deliver. But I can just see your ilk blaming the lack of net neutrality the next time your Netflix video buffers for a few seconds.

 

[TroyBoy30]

Yes, but they don't control what you do with your service. They will now.

they absolute do control what you do with their service. data caps, etc

it's pretty simple. if you want the best speed and best speed for the services you need. pay for it

 

[EightyTwenty]

His internet package argument isn't about Data. It's about ISP controlling what we as consumers have access to. You want access to Netflix without your speeds being throttled? You would have to pay for it. Now tell me, would you want to pay for each service or website you frequent on a daily basis just so it functions properly? Ya I doubt you would.

Open your eyes.

Is this how the Internet worked before 2015?

Screw "net neutrality". Google already censors, bans, throttles and demonetizes data being sent between users. There is no neutral Internet. That died a LONG time ago. Data is treated very differently, depending on the political affiliation of the user sending and receiving the data.

Look at who supports "net neutrality": Google, Facebook, Netflix, Amazon... all the Big Tech monopolies who are evil as hell and censor, block and throttle data they don't like for political reasons. Screw them. They need to start paying their fair share.

 

[KdParker]

Yes, but they don't control what you do with your service. They will now.

I don't think people understand what companies can do without net neutrality in their way.

They can limit what sites you can access.

Slow/block sites they are 'politically' opposed too.

Institute guidelines for what can be download or uploaded on their network.

etc...

 

[lkrupp]

GOOD!

We don't have a "neutral" internet today thanks to Big Tech monopolies like Google and Facebook.

I trust the ISPs far more than I do the Big Tech monopolies.

It’s apparent you have no idea what the word monopoly means. You apparently think any big company is a monopoly, that size determines monopolistic status. You probably think Apple is a monopoly because it’s the only one who makes and sells Apple products, right? That ain’t too smart.