FCC Expected to Repeal Net Neutrality Rules in Vote Next Month

[Packers1958]

The idea that somehow removing net neutrality is going to somehow create more competition is a joke. The countries with the fastest internet service (South Korea and Japan) have net neutrality in place. Oddly, the 2 countries that are broadcasting 4K and soon to be 8K OTA programming are the same 2 countries. Deregulation in the US has not made us the leader in the world anymore. It just brought us down to everyone else's level and in fact behind western Europe.

 

[OldSchoolMacGuy]

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.

Under current laws any company, say Comcast, can certainly allow other companies to use their lines. They don't. Why? Because if you're going to spend the money to lay those lines, you're going to be the one to make money off of them.

Let's pretend you could buy from the FiOS people your neighbor can get. What happens to your current company? They go out of business. Now you're back to a single company.

It's stupidly expensive to run an ISP. As I said, you have to be able to capture a significant portion of the market. Even in countries where there aren't city contracted monopolies, you tend to see a single provider? Why? Because it's EXTREMELY hard for 2 companies to exist in a single area. The profits one can make aren't enough to justify the expense.

I'm sorry, but your thinking about this just doesn't work. It's a great idea to believe that we could have dozens of fiber or cable options for home internet, but there's not enough money to go around to make that viable. Which ever one of those companies attracts the most users will likely survive, while the others will shut down and you'll be left once again with a single ISP.

 

[EightyTwenty]

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...

You mean what Google and the Big Tech monopolies do TODAY? How horrible!

 

[old-wiz]

Not a big surprise - the corporations that gave millions to the politicians (and own them) so that the politicians would do as the corporations want, not to benefit citizens. We are now a Corporate Oligarchy, no longer a Republic or a Democracy. Within 5 years I expect we will move to some evil "Christian" theocracy and no voting on anything.

 

[chrono1081]

So yes, both sides ARE the same, and that's why they're both destroying this country.

No they are absolutely not the same, not even close. Please, have a look at this fully sourced post from Reddit that highlights how much both parties are NOT the same:

https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/75ob7s/fccs_claim_that_one_isp_counts_as_competition/do7rcdc/

You can click on every link, verify who voted for what, and read the bill.

 

[KdParker]

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.

Not sure you really know what net neutrality is if you think it causes censorship.

 

[thisisnotmyname]

I find myself in the very unpopular position of being in the squishy middle on this issue. On one hand I think I paid for my bandwidth and the ISPs should be agnostic as to what I use it for on the other end. If I use 300Mbps on YouTube cat videos that's my choice. On the other hand I think there needs to be accommodation for Quality of Service and the absolutists on the Net Neutrality side don't want to recognize that. I don't want my VoIP communications to break up because all my neighbors are watching cat videos and all our packets are weighted equally. I would support a Net Neutrality that recognizes QoS and allows for discrimination of different types of traffic but not prioritizing one over another in the same category of traffic (e.g. can't slow down Netflix but allow full speed XFinity). I'd still see a problem with regulators not being able to move fast enough to keep up with innovation though as those categories would likely need to be enshrined and prioritized by regulators and then what happens when tomorrow we need a new QoS group for real time AR and we can't get it until a 12 month comment and review period has elapsed. I don't see an easy solution on either side here.

I'll prepare to be roasted now by both sides.

edit: I also attribute a lot of the insanely rapid innovation we've seen in internet related technologies across the last couple decades as due in large part (or at least not hindered by) the lack of a lot of government oversight and regulation. Despite wanting to protect the freedom of packets I also dislike the idea of ISPs being treated like industrial era power companies and regulated to death. This could be a popular way to get a foothold and then expand government regulation from there, in which case again we all lose.

 

[AZ63]

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.

Do you think that if what you say "could" happen does happen that it could not be addressed by legislation or that there is no ever going back to the fairness you believe is inherent in Net Neutrailty?
I agree that what you indicate might happen and it would be bad for all, I believe it is unlikely to happen and if it does occur it would get fixed.

 

[EightyTwenty]

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.

Exactly.

And why are multiple package offerings a bad thing? I have no interest in ever using Netflix, so why am I subsidizing it? It's ridiculous.

 

[Packers1958]

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.

It's a monopoly when the 2 largest cable companies in the US provide control over 70% of the internet service in this country. Now that net neutrality is gone, they will buy what's left of the small region providers and in essence we will be stuck with just one provider for the eastern US and one for the west. That's your monopolies taking over.

 

[i hate phones]

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.

so what about all the people who only have access to one ISP? which competitor are they going to switch to exactly?

 

[avanpelt]

If the scenario that the government was supposedly trying to stop with Net Neutrality (ISPs prioritizing certain traffic over others based on where the traffic is going) actually starts happening en masse, there will likely be a steep uptick in the use of VPNs. I'm already surprised by how many "normal" people I hear talking about using VPNs for their normal, everyday surfing. I always thought the Net Neutrality legislation was created in search of a problem instead of addressing actual problems that Americans were experiencing with their ISPs.

 

[lkrupp]

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...

So how did we get this far before the Obama administration came up with net neutrality a few years ago? I don’t seem to recall having any issues with being censored, blocked, throttled in the 90s or 00’s. Just a few data caps here and there.

 

[Z400Racer37]

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 available, 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.)

Be that as it may, thats neither here nor there. They may have intended it one way, and the companies may have done it another way, but that does not change the fact that they did it, with their property, and that they own it. Full stop. Either I have the right control my switches the way I want, or I don't. I can choose to be compatible with others if I want, or not. MY choice. And you have a right to CHOOSE whether you use my service or now. That's the end of it.

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).

So? Are these companies obligated to provide broadband internet to 12 people who live in the middle of nowhere? They have to run tons of equipment, so they can provide service to people at a loss? You have a choice: Choose to live in rural Ohio, and have slow or no internet, or live where there are other people, and get faster internet. Choose. But let's not operate under the impression that it's the responsibility of these companies to provide people with service if it doesn't make economic sense for them to do so.

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.

See previous comment. Also, I never said that "providing service across the country" is the standard of value here. The standard is: The protection of the rights of the people in the country, including their property rights. If the government protects people's right to control their property, thats good. If they don't, that's bad.

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.

I never said they created the internet, I said their networking equipment is what made it possible for the consumer, which is absolutely true. You're using it right now. Thank them, and pay them. If you don't like them, switch providers. if you don't have another provider, as yourself why, and find the law which is preventing another company from coming in and taking all their customers, by providing the service better than the other company could. They're all over the place in this industry.

 

[brian3uk]

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.

I live in Florida too and IDK about where you live, but here there is no competition in home internet/tv. My choices are Spectrum or nothing. So what exactly am I to do? I already got the FCC involved when Spectrum bought Brighthouse and increased my rate by $25 and eliminated the cheaper plan so I couldn't downgrade. When I called Spectrum they told me "well if you lived in Tampa where Frontier is then we could offer you a better deal". The FCC sent them a letter and now magically they let me keep my original plan. So no, competition isn't going to help, unless the gov is going to do something about monopoly power. Of course people would bitch about them doing that too. So whats the solution?

 

[maelstromr]

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.

You were expressing a shockingly purest/extreme libertarian idea that logically means there should be NO regulation whatsoever. ("If it takes from me, you/the government don't have a right to do it.") I don't need to give you a basic civics or history lesson to explain why the government's ability to control elements of the economy or society or people themselves is necessary, or at least is way beyond rational debate.

I suspect, given that you have presumably read this thread and the related source material, that there is very little to convince you that some regulation can be good. I submit to you that at it's core things like food safety are unambiguously important domains of regulation, and private companies and individuals have shown what they are willing to subject the public to absent regulation. See The Jungle to start.

As to efficacy, your arguments seem to mirror those against safety belts and related auto safety technology from the 70's and 80's. Turns out all those "expensive" and "pointless" laws and regs ended up saving thousands, maybe millions of lives at a cost of what for most of us doesn't even register as an issue today. "Government damaging you" by forcing you to do things you don't want happens all the time, and you benefit...bigly...from it daily.

 

[Packers1958]

Exactly.

And why are multiple package offerings a bad thing? I have no interest in ever using Netflix, so why am I subsidizing it? It's ridiculous.

You really think that your internet cost is going to go down after this ruling? Nope, you will still pay the same price, but they will now add an extra fee for Netflix, gaming etc; if you want it. So in reality, you are still paying for it, now the cable companies can pad their bottom line. So how is that a good thing for you? You will see no benefit.

 

[KPOM]

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.

No, you are the one reading fake news. Obama should have blocked NBC/Comcast but didn’t. MSNBC is favorable to Obama. I wonder why he let it go through?

Anyway the antitrust division is somewhat independent of the admin. They used AT&T and Time Warner’s own words against them. Turns out AT&T opposed the NBC/Comcast merger as anti-consumer.

 

[Z400Racer37]

Under current laws any company, say Comcast, can certainly allow other companies to use their lines. They don't. Why? Because if you're going to spend the money to lay those lines, you're going to be the one to make money off of them.

Let's pretend you could buy from the FiOS people your neighbor can get. What happens to your current company? They go out of business. Now you're back to a single company.

It's stupidly expensive to run an ISP. As I said, you have to be able to capture a significant portion of the market. Even in countries where there aren't city contracted monopolies, you tend to see a single provider? Why? Because it's EXTREMELY hard for 2 companies to exist in a single area. The profits one can make aren't enough to justify the expense.

I'm sorry, but your thinking about this just doesn't work. It's a great idea to believe that we could have dozens of fiber or cable options for home internet, but there's not enough money to go around to make that viable. Which ever one of those companies attracts the most users will likely survive, while the others will shut down and you'll be left once again with a single ISP.

Let's just short circuit this whole thing, because wether or not companies can coexist is irrelevant. Heres the real question: Do you have a right to tell someone else what they are allowed to do with their internet equipment, because you want fast internet. Do you have a right to control other people, and their property, because they're able to provide a service that you want?

 

[EightyTwenty]

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.

Way to address my point. Solid counter-argument, friend.

There is no neutral Internet. The big tech monopolies killed that idea a LONG time ago.

 

[AZ63]

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

I believe it to be a remote possibility that ISPs will structure costs linked to access. Possibly, yes. Likely, no. If ISPs start to do this there will be a backlash. As long as the gov. doesn't let the data companies become a monopoly that type of cost structure would remain remote. imo

 

[BlazednSleepy]

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.

Do you even hear what your saying right now? There is no positive outcome for us as consumers. We will get completely screwed over by ISP's AND the big tech corporations because the IPS's will charge them AND us.

Stop acting like ISP's are the good guys here. It's absolutely ridiculous and narrow minded of you.

 

[KPOM]

The idea that somehow removing net neutrality is going to somehow create more competition is a joke. The countries with the fastest internet service (South Korea and Japan) have net neutrality in place. Oddly, the 2 countries that are broadcasting 4K and soon to be 8K OTA programming are the same 2 countries. Deregulation in the US has not made us the leader in the world anymore. It just brought us down to everyone else's level and in fact behind western Europe.

False. Government-sanctioned monopolies did that. Most cities signed sweetheart deals with the “cable company” to keep competitors out.
[doublepost=1511293806][/doublepost]

Do you even hear what your saying right now? There is no positive outcome for us as consumers. We will get completely screwed over by ISP's AND the big tech corporations because the IPS's will charge them AND us.

Stop acting like ISP's are the good guys here. It's absolutely ridiculous and narrow minded of you.

Why are you acting as if NetFlix, Google and Apple are automatically the good guys here? NetFlix in particular benefits the most because it can hog all the bandwidth it wants without shouldering the cost.

 

[UL2RA]

Why are the biggest idiots on planet earth in charge of all these things?

 

[Glideslope]

Time to repel "Ajit Pai Neutrality." Don't forget this vote in 2018 and 2020. The Oligarchs need to go.