FCC Has Voted to Repeal Net Neutrality Rules

[killr_b]

No one in this thread has ever even read the Open Internet Order lol. It didn't make the internet "neutral" at all. It just said that ISP's can't "unreasonably" discriminate. Discrimination was still possible.

Also, stemming from the Bush admin, the .gov basically said that they can impose their will on ISP's without any regulations backing their decisions. Literally totalitarian. Obama admin expanded the crap out of that to the Open Internet Order in a basically "all your ISP belong to us" fashion. Obama admin was so ridiculously totalitarian that I still can't believe the delusions liberals live with in their special cognitive dissidence. The people who believe that was "net neutrality" are just...

A real market-based solution could look something like this:
ISP makes deal with Netflix that a couple dollars per subscription from Netflix goes toward full speed streaming availability for Netflix. Netflix addresses this by charging a couple bucks on a high tier plan, for people who want UHD for example, and thus maintaining a low price-point plan for consumers who prefer to pay less for Netflix. Meanwhile, consumers also benefit by the ISP having a lower price-point tier for their service (most ISP's are already tiered) which benefits lower income people most.

The point is, one size fits all is a stupid business model, and the people who's business it is should be making the deals they need to make, not being told what to do by bureaucrats and .gov which can't dynamically address the needs of consumers in a speedy way.

 

[turbineseaplane]

What does bathrooms have to do with this? Point is, find a new provider if you hate them (seems logical) because more will be popping up.

Not without local loop unbundling they won't...

We are a long long ways from wireless being any competition either, especially around caps and de-prioritization

 

[ToroidalZeus]

Bit of an outsider to US politics. It sounds like it kind of sucks (backwards steps usually do) and that net neutrality is a nice thing to have.... but having seen the amount of freaking out over it that's what I'm struggling to understand. These nightmare scenarios I've heard of bandwidth limits and severely restricting competing sites etc... are they actually likely to happen? Or are they an extreme hypothetical? Did any of the nightmare scenarios happen between 1996 and 2015, and if not, what makes them more likely to happen now? Was much of a difference seen in the 2015-2017 period?

I'm on the side of "you shoud've kept that", I'm just trying to understand the panic as I have a US friend freaking out over it and such.

1. What will happen is first ISPs will go after tech gaints and force them to pay more for service. People will see an indirect increase in price as those costs are passed onto consumer.
2. ISPs will come out with new "cheaper" whatever you want plans. People will pay for a base internet package + options like sports, shopping, video streaming, etc. At first these plans will be priced lower to entice people, then the prices will increase. End result will be people paying more.

 

[spazzcat]

You’re welcome. Now if you don’t like an ISP’s policies you can hurt them more, rather than just “put up with it”. Pushes for more competition.

You we can't do anything about it. Most don't have a choice when it comes to who they get their internet from.

 

[maelstromr]

What does bathrooms have to do with this? Point is, find a new provider if you hate them (seems logical) because more will be popping up.

I was making an allusion to other fantastical tales of the GOP to highlight the silliness of your point. What is the basis for your belief that this will create more broadband providers? And, let's not argue, I'll meet you back here next year and we'll just see who was right.

 

[ToroidalZeus]

What does bathrooms have to do with this? Point is, find a new provider if you hate them (seems logical) because more will be popping up.

You can't. ISPs are natural monopolies.

 

[macfacts]

Imagine, if you will, that I'm an idiot (it really doesn't take much imagination). Would one of you take pity on me and give me a few of Net Neutrality's pros and cons? I can't find pieces that are unbiased enough to actually teach me something, and you folks are among the best-informed on the issue.

I'm not trolling. I want to understand what Pai's critics are on about, and what his supporters are on about. Links are fine, but please give me a pro and a con from a reputable source.

With no net neutrality (let the free market do whatever), these things can happen:

- your phone company giving your dsl connection to the internet can slow down your VoIP usage because that competes with their phone business.
- your cable company that gives you internet can slow down your Netflix videos because that competes with their tv business.
- your mobile data provider can do deals with one online video streaming service and slow down others.

In all these examples, they aren't slowing down everyone (normal network prioritization), they are targetting specific ports/services or i.p. sources to slow down.

Net neutrality says you can't target specific ports or IP sources. Treat all data the same.

 

[turbineseaplane]

A real market-based solution could look something like this

Local loop unbundling and competition amongst dozens of options.
Actual competition is the only market based solution that we need.

Wireless has only shown even a modicum of competition lately because you can switch to other good options mostly everywhere, mostly painlessly.

I am all for absolutely no net neutrality rules if we get local loop unbundling and people have to work for my business, not the current situation where I eat the garbage sandwich they feed me and "like it".

 

[M.PaulCezanne]

Bit of an outsider to US politics. It sounds like it kind of sucks (backwards steps usually do) and that net neutrality is a nice thing to have.... but having seen the amount of panic over it that's what I'm struggling to understand. These nightmare scenarios I've heard of bandwidth limits and severely restricting competing sites etc... are they actually likely to happen? Or are they an extreme hypothetical? Did any of the nightmare scenarios happen between 1996 and 2015, and if not, what makes them more likely to happen now? Was much of a difference seen in the 2015-2017 period?

I'm on the side of "you shoud've kept that", I'm just trying to understand the panic as I have a US friend freaking out over it and such.

Does the Pope wear a funny hat? Not being familiar with US politics, here’s a primer: Republicans deregulate to increase corporate profits and wealth for the wealthy. This policy means more money for the ISPs. Therefore, with metaphysical certitude, yes - it will happen. It’s the only reason this vote occurred today.

 

[scoobs69]

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

Trump gets impeached, we're stuck with Pence. If Pence gets impeached, we're stuck with Ryan...

....not sure which one would be worse.

 

[ToroidalZeus]

No one in this thread has ever even read the Open Internet Order lol. It didn't make the internet "neutral" at all. It just said that ISP's can't "unreasonably" discriminate. Discrimination was still possible.

Also, stemming from the Bush admin, the .gov basically said that they can impose their will on ISP's without any regulations backing their decisions. Literally totalitarian. Obama admin expanded the crap out of that to the Open Internet Order in a basically "all your ISP belong to us" fashion. Obama admin was so ridiculously totalitarian that I still can't believe the delusions liberals live with in their special cognitive dissidence. The people who believe that was "net neutrality" are just...

A real market-based solution could look something like this:
ISP makes deal with Netflix that a couple dollars per subscription from Netflix goes toward full speed streaming availability for Netflix. Netflix addresses this by charging a couple bucks on a high tier plan, for people who want UHD for example, and thus maintaining a low price-point plan for consumers who prefer to pay less for Netflix. Meanwhile, consumers also benefit by the ISP having a lower price-point tier for their service (most ISP's are already tiered) which benefits lower income people most.

The point is, one size fits all is a stupid business model, and the people who's business it is should be making the deals they need to make, not being told what to do by bureaucrats and .gov which can't dynamically address the needs of consumers in a speedy way.

Where did you learn this from? I find it sad that you believe 3rd degree price discrimination will lead to LOWER prices. The entire point of this strategy is to extract the maximum amount of money possible from each person so prices will be up across the board.

 

[tgara]

What I don't get is how ANYONE on a TECH WEBSITE can support this. It's ironic and frankly contradictory.

Because unlike the art history, sociology, and psychology majors that appear to populate most tech sites (and IT generally), some of us understand economics, regulatory systems, and the law.

 

[fairuz]

I was referring mainly to the U.K. and europe when I said allies. Speaking of which: The U.S. was part of Britain. Should we still be just because we once were?

The US was a colony, not part of the mainland, and more importantly Americans don't want to be part of the UK (mainly for the first reason). This isn't the case with Ukraine. The US has been trying to support rebellions against Russia there and spreading propaganda in our own interest.

TBH I don't care about the UK or Europe either. They're fine countries but don't need our support, and the support has been pretty one-way.

 

[techwhiz]

So it will be the same mess as it was pre 2015, oh wait it wasn't a mess then and it won't now...

But those bills that went down after 2015 will go back up now, oh wait they didn't go down after 2015...

But, but, but Trump's an idiot so everything he approves, we disapprove even though it really isn't that big of a deal.

The 2015 rules prevented them from screwing up Netflix and Hulu.
They did try to charge for delivery.

But hey, you, like Pai, are willing to burn the house down for a political agenda.
So all the content providers, more than 50% of the public, creates of the internet and the FCC's own CTO are all wrong and only Verizon and AT&T are right. You do realize that former FCC chairman Powell is now a school for the ISP's and Pay was at Verizon. No bias there.

"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." - Daniel Webster

"The people's government, made for the people, made by the people, and answerable to the people." - Daniel Webster

 

[ToroidalZeus]

Because unlike the art history, sociology, and psychology majors that appear to populate most tech sites (and IT generally), some of us understand economics, regulatory systems, and the law.

the people who understand economics and regulation are the people who support NN.

 

[aaronhead14]

There’s only one ISP in my area.

Then it's in your ISP's best interest to not mess with their customers.

I think the fear-mongering approach to this whole FCC issue is a bit of an exaggeration. Net neutrality was only instituted in 2015. Pre-2015 internet was no different than internet today. Going back to deregulated internet isn't an issue at all, the way I see it. ISPs have no reason to mess around and create angry customers. It's just not gonna happen, guys. We all need to calm down. Everything is going to be fine.

 

[techwhiz]

Exactly this. I saw no difference in access to the Internet prior to 2015. Just scare mongering by the left. :/

Okay, you think Comcast won't deprioritize traffic from Netflix, Amazon Video and Hulu?
They (AT&T and Comcast) have already implemented data caps that exclude their content.
That is a back handed way to charge you for streaming if you go over the cap.

Whatever, I have an ISP that gives me a pipe and isn't in the content business.

 

[FelixDerKater]

Shameful day...

 

[Cloudane]

Does the Pope wear a funny hat? Not being familiar with US politics, here’s a primer: Republicans deregulate to increase corporate profits and wealth for the wealthy. This policy means more money for the ISPs. Therefore, with metaphysical certitude, yes - it will happen. It’s the only reason this vote occurred today.

Will it happen to the internet-ending degree being predicted though?

Suppose the repeal is because they do want to introduce the nightmare scenarios (and not just because a brown president did it therefore it's bad and needs to be repealed, which is the impression the republicans tend to give me) would you not just have what we have in the UK where we have ****** ISPs like Tiscali who a lot of people still go for because "eh I don't understand or care as long as it's the cheapest and works" and anyone technically savvy just picks a better ISP?

 

[Darryl.Jenks]

With no net neutrality (let the free market do whatever), these things can happen:

- your phone company giving your dsl connection to the internet can slow down your VoIP usage because that competes with their phone business.
- your cable company that gives you internet can slow down your Netflix videos because that competes with their tv business.
- your mobile data provider can do deals with one online video streaming service and slow down others.

In all these examples, they aren't slowing down everyone (normal network prioritization), they are targetting specific ports/services or i.p. sources to slow down.

Net neutrality says you can't target specific ports or IP sources. Treat all data the same.

That is very helpful, thank you.

 

[Altis]

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

There are only really 2 mobile operating systems (iOS and Android). There are more than 2 ISPs, though.

In both cases, though, we're talking about the consumer being at the mercy of the corporations, are we not?

The only difference is an ISP could say "you have to pay us X if you want that service" while Apple says "that's a shame our update ruined your device -- guess you'll have to buy a new one!".

I'm not even defending the demise of net neutrality -- only pointing out that the same people who are complaining about corporatism seem to have no issue when their beloved Apple or other companies do it.

 

[anzio]

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

Ehhh. We have Trudeau. They should probably feel sorry for us.

 

[techwhiz]

I don't agree with a lot of what Trump does, but I don't think he's got any ulterior motives. He probably thinks this is going to improve America.

Really??
His goal is to undo anything Obama did.

 

[Defthand]

If the ISP’s exploit the situation, this is something that a sharp pair of cable cutters and late night anarchy will solve. Just sayin’.

 

[ggibson913]

Then it's in your ISP's best interest to not mess with their customers.

I think the fear-mongering approach to this whole FCC issue is a bit of an exaggeration. Net neutrality was only instituted in 2015. Pre-2015 internet was no different than internet today. Going back to deregulated internet isn't an issue at all, the way I see it. ISPs have no reason to mess around and create angry customers. It's just not gonna happen, guys. We all need to calm down. Everything is going to be fine.

Your first sentence makes no sense, if I have a monopoly I can do whatever I want to my customers. That is why monopolies are generally considered bad.