Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I truly feel sorry for my neighbors down South and all the crap you’ve had to put up with. Gonna be 4 years of hell. Or maybe less, when Trump get impeached

hahaha! Not happening. In fact, all your "heroes" are going to jail.

bookmark this for later for reference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: webbuzz
Let's see what happens. These rules are only 2 years old, and before them everything wasn't atrocious. We need to move on from relying on an oligopoly for our bandwidth anyway. I hope this accelerates the process.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Huck
Yes, everything Obama = bad. Everything Trump = good. Stop the political crap and think. Innovation will definitely be hindered by this rule.

Say I want to start up a new website to compete with AT&T-owned DirecTV NOW. AT&T will make my service slower, thus making DirecTV NOW seem much better. This was not allowed previously - all content had to be treated the same.

AT&T later says I'll have to pay them $10,000 a day to make my content the same priority. Really? For a startup? This type of thing will definitely hinder innovation.

I can also imagine politics getting involved. How would you like if Verizon, say, decided to make Foxnews.com and all conservative sites work at 300 baud, while all other liberal sites could go full speed? This effectively silences a party's voice. That's allowed with this new rule, which wasn't allowed before.

Net neutrality is freedom. This is definitely not.

Wrong on all accounts. Your internet will...stay the same with this ruling.
Nice hyperbole though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Huck
Yes, finally all the fear mongering from the left can stop. The world will continue to spin and innovation will not be hindered by Obama era regulation.

wat?

Net neutrality wasn't a regulation, it was a protection to keep the internet free and open so every packet has the same priority.
 
Do you know that Netflix started paying ISPs for faster access before 2015, right? This stopped in 2015 and now, we will get to pay. And this is a huge deal. Want to use Netflix and not Directv now on ATT, guess what there can now be fee for that before today it was not allowed and you can say they were not doing it before 2015, but they were, they were slowing services like Netflix down in favor of their own.

Good, you are using up far more bandwidth. Netflix and YouTube dominate and should pay more. It will either reduce usage so everyone can enjoy limited bandwidth or provide financing to build more infrastructure making the point moot.

Are you for reducing local restrictions so more cable can be laid? It won't happen if there is no incentive to get paid more to cover the costs.

This crap of everyone FaceTiming/Streaming/Gaming in an airport/train station having mindless conversations while people are trying to do critical things is not working.

If your desire is that you should not have to pay more for using more then you are on your own. You want that in every other arena, just not for your precious internet, which you think should be free (meaning paid for by others).

We need more bandwidth. Only a free market will provide it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Huck
It's funny, it's exactly like all the people here that endlessly defend Apple's anti-consumer approaches.

Everything from making iOS updates permanent so your device is totally eff'd over to the walled garden where you have no choice but to play by their rules.

It's funny how many of them just happen to be developers or shareholders. ;)

You are comparing an OS (one of many) with access to the internet... you know, that thing that people are discussing about becoming a human right
 
Let's see what happens. These rules are only 2 years old, and before them everything wasn't atrocious. We need to move on from relying on an oligopoly for our bandwidth anyway. I hope this accelerates the process.

Again, that's not entirely accurate. The rule change in 2015 was enacted to PRESERVE the Internet as it has always been.

Aijit and Trump have now just changed those rules to allow ISPs to be content gatekeepers. Comcast and Verizon will get to decide what content you get to load, how fast you get to load it, and even if it gets to you. That's what Trump wants for your America.
 
"Eliminating net neutrality would allow ISPs to charge both customers and companies (like Google or Netflix) extra money to ensure continued access. This money could in turn be used to upgrade network infrastructure."

Why this is not true: It is already extremely cheap for ISPs to deliver data from those who create it to those who request it. https://broadbandnow.com/report...lly-cost-isps/

Furthermore, even as profits have risen and costs have lowered, ISPS have spent less and less on infrastructure. https://www.washingtonpost.com/...=.a5cbd751a5fb

So they already have the money, but they won’t use it to build infrastructure they claim to want. In fact, the major ISPs pocketed $200 billion given to them by the government that was supposed to be spent on infrastructure improvements and then sued other companies to prevent them from using their own money to build their own improved infrastructure.
https://www.techdirt.com/articl.../2021240.shtml

“Charging more for sites that use a lot of bandwidth allows ISPs to provide access to other sites for free.”

Why this is not true: They don’t actually mean free. They mean at no increased cost. But that’s the way everything is under net neutrality: you pay for internet access, and all sites are supposed to be accessible at the same transfer rate. So we’d be paying more for less. Let’s suppose that some ISPs really were going to be altruistic and give free access to certain sites to anyone with a device capable of accessing the internet. The advantage of the internet is that it is a web (a world wide web, in fact). Partial access to a few sites that don’t use much bandwidth—many of which are just portals to other sites that require more bandwidth—robs users of the main advantage of using the internet.

Many of the fears about a lack of net neutrality are overblown, fair enough. The ISPs were not charging more for high bandwidth sites even before net neutrality came into play. But unregulated ISPs certainly have that option now. In many areas, there is only one ISP to choose from. This is true in many rural areas (I grew up in a small rural town that only had Charter as the choice and nothing else). Getting rid of net neutrality is not a guarantee that ISPs will engage in this behavior and I would like to take them at their word that they won't. But it opens up the possibility.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lordofthereef
Again, that's not entirely accurate. The rule change in 2015 was enacted to PRESERVE the Internet as it has always been.

Aijit and Trump have now just changed those rules to allow ISPs to be content gatekeepers. Comcast and Verizon will get to decide what content you get to load, how fast you get to load it, and even if it gets to you. That's what Trump wants for your America.
Exactly, I just don't get how people aren't seeing it. This is a control tactic and one that puts those solely with power and money in the drivers seat. Buckle up, it's going to be a nasty ride.
 
  • Like
Reactions: arkitect
You are certainly free to opine that things are better with the roll-back of net-neutrality rules, but I don't think public servants blatantly ignoring the will the people who are majority in support of net-neutrality, and not delaying vote while all the fake public comments debacle is investigated, I don't see how as a citizen in a democracy you can celebrate this.

Because they aren't citizens of this democracy. They belong to a band of angry demagogues who have misdirected rage at losing prominence based on their race/religion/sex/blue collars and who are more interested in punishing the world for their loss of status (or the status they think they have lost) by setting a match to everything they can get their hands on, including the internet which birthed their godforsaken movement. And the uber rich who pull GOP strings are happy as clams to go along because rampant reckless deregulation is good for corporations...at least until the actual Nazi flags and pedophiles start flying, at which point it's 50/50 ish.
 
This is really sad to see as a Canadian, and puts America's internet potentially one step closer to China's Great Firewall. Good job.

It also puts it potentially one step farther from China's Great Firewall. One could argue ending these regulations does just that - keep the government out of the internet.

I'm in favor of the NN regulations but I've been dismayed by all the very vocal and very misleading press about NN: "This will be the END of the INTERNET!" Those are the headlines today all over news and news-related sites. It's really not clear what the results of this action will be.
 
Did they really add a provision that States can't make their own rules? And would that really stand in court? I think only Congress would have such authority, not the FCC, and AFAIK there was no vote on it?
I hope States will be able to fight back, I know they are already preparing to take action here in WA.
17 states have announced they are suing the FCC so far. A little glimmer of hope
 
What I don't get is how ANYONE on a TECH WEBSITE can support this. It's ironic and frankly contradictory.

Anyway, enjoy the downfall of the platform and system you love so much, and signed up on a web forum to discuss. And thank it all to Cheeto.
 
Alright look, chances are nobody is going to pay a premium for certain services. Certain services may be zero rated (not count for data caps). And Trump isn’t getting impeached. There’s no crime so stop beating the dead horse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Huck
Something to think about -- this is only rolling things back to the way that they were in 2015. I don't particularly remembering things being that bad two years ago.

And, in spite of the "net neutrality" protection that was signed into place in 2015, I saw plenty of companies after 2015 engaging in behavior that doesn't look so neutral to me. T-Mobile, Time Warner, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Huck
17 states have announced they are suing the FCC so far. A little glimmer of hope

There is a possibility that the flaws created by this fake comment craziness could lead to a ruling that this regulation was facially arbitrary and/or capricious (or whatever the advanced standard for defeating regs is). So, as a addendum to my earlier comment, the states can have some influence in that sense.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.