FCC Has Voted to Repeal Net Neutrality Rules

[512ke]

Shameful day...

This will be very useful, for cable companies to charge additional money, for the government to assert additional control, for certain media outlets to throttle their competition. Who will it not be useful for? Consumers. The average person who has to pay more and have access to less.

But that's like everything our federal government is doing right now. Taking power and resources away from middle class and poor people, and redirecting them in a reverse Robin Hood scheme, toward the wealthy, the powerful, the elite.

Open internet? Bye bye. Medicare and Medicaid? Undermined. ACA? Undermined. Environmental protection? Gutted. Food safety? Throttled. Ability for individuals to sue corrupt banks and other businesses? Undermined.

Look for continued restrictions on the average person's ability to: travel to other countries, travel the internet, have free access to information, have access the health care, have federal flood and disaster insurance and relief, have access to a clean environment, have access to safe food, and to fight back against big corporations.

Look for billionaires to get richer and own even more than the whopping portion of everything that minuscule percentage of people already control.

This net neutrality fits perfectly into that overall trend.

And everyone who voted for a "populist" Republican agenda, is getting screwed over, UNLESS you are super wealthy.

 

[archer75]

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

You have that backwards. You have no where else to go when there's only 1. The ISP can do whatever they want. If you want internet you have no choice.

 

[techwhiz]

The FCC is exactly like the SEC. Digressing a bit here, look at Wall Street. The most fraudulent activities happen and there is the SEC police that do nothing.

The price of capitalism ya'll.

Because laws were repealed that gave them teeth.
With no backing and the ability to fine, what do you expect?
Your argument is specious and best and a blatant lie at worst.

 

[PizzaBoxStyle]

We'll leave the HRC insanity aside and pretend like you mean this. I'll believe it when I see GOP-ers or otherwise stop getting behind Trump/Roy Moore candidates. Until then, I think it's pretty fair for me to assume you're all more willing to burn it down then play like adults who compromise.

Compromise? Like the time HRC was going to be for fast track, but against TPP?

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/48854

 

[tooltalk]

Enjoy this coming to America:

Sure, why is this bad? If my only alternative is to pay $60/month for high-speed connection and all I need is occassional access to Amazon and CNN, I would find these options quite appealing. The Net Neutrality doesn't seem to do jack sh*t about the local telecomm/broadband monpoly/duopoly that created the underlying problem in the first place by local gov't.

 

[killr_b]

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.

Learn what? How to read? lol
Yes, lower prices. For example, computers in the 90's were like $2-3,000. You get a lot more for less money now. Also, my ISP bill 15 years ago was $10 less than my current ISP bill, but my connection went from 3Mb/s to 200Mb/s. I could get the 50Mb/s plan and it would be cheaper than my 15 years ago bill and still be over 10x faster. Business 101.

 

[maelstromr]

Compromise? Like the time HRC was going to be for fast track, but against TPP?

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/48854

non sequitor -
: a statement (such as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said

• We were talking about the new restaurant when she threw in some non sequitur about her dog.

 

[turbineseaplane]

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.

So true

In fact, Pai just gave us an A+ parallel example of this.

Over 80% of the country didn't want this, but since he's in the power position, he did whatever his donors wanted against our will.

Absent competition, I don't see how anyone can rationally expect ISP's to do anything beyond "whatever they want".

 

[techwhiz]

I agree. America is still feeling the pain of the Obamacare disaster.

In the 1980's the senate and house along with the president, signed into law that we don't let people die in the street.
Once you have a must treat policy for emergency rooms; someone will and has to pay.
So you pay for emergency room care through higher rates, when it s much cheaper to pay for a doctor's visit.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Learn what? How to read? lol
Yes, lower prices. For example, computers in the 90's were like $2-3,000. You get a lot more for less money now. Also, my ISP bill 15 years ago was $10 less than my current ISP bill, but my connection went from 3Mb/s to 200Mb/s. I could get the 50Mb/s plan and it would be cheaper than my 15 years ago bill and still be over 10x faster. Business 101.

That sounds nice - I currently pay $25 more for the same 50/5 service I had 8 years ago.

 

[PizzaBoxStyle]

non sequitor -
: a statement (such as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said

• We were talking about the new restaurant when she threw in some non sequitur about her dog.

So you didnt read whats behind the link? Too much truth in the source documents?

You are talking about GOP candidates as if they are the only ones "burning down the house." The otherside has been just as reckless. The position that HRC was going to take on TPP was just as egregious as this NN decision. The link is proof of what was really going on behind the scenes.

The link is evidence that the Democrats back just as awful of candidates. The parent conment was on-point.

 

[Altis]

You have that backwards. You have no where else to go when there's only 1. The ISP can do whatever they want. If you want internet you have no choice.

Wouldn't that already be the case, then? Couldn't they just charge what they want even under net neutrality?

I mean, if it's already a monopoly, as you say it is...

 

[Kaibelf]

Did your internet bill materially decrease after 2015?

Why would it have? The rules in 2015 codified everything that had been basically guaranteed prior, to prevent nonsense like today's from being an issue. Now, you're back to being at the mercy of companies which, let's be honest, don't care about you in ANY way and only want your money, and always have, and always will ONLY want your money.

 

[killr_b]

That sounds nice - I currently pay $25 more for the same 50/5 service I had 8 years ago.

Then you'll be glad to hear that after today's repeal it's more likely that someone would be willing to invest to build a competitor in your area, whereas that wasn't as attractive before to make an investment. Heck, maybe Netflix will be their own ISP soon lol

 

[Altis]

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

Great quote! But isn't that type of talk considered bigoted, ultra-nationalistic hate-speech now?

 

[jimbobb24]

Oh no! We are back to the horrors of the internet we endured in 2015! How will we survive?

I have always been amazed at the intense feelings about net neutrality. People here are freaking out. Like before this there was a literal war for the internet that was won and we threw off the shackles non-neutrality. I am not sure where it comes from. My prediction...nothing changes. Possibly a few big vendors (Amazon, Google, Netflix) start paying part of my cable bill to make sure that their packets go faster.

 

[ToroidalZeus]

Learn what? How to read? lol
Yes, lower prices. For example, computers in the 90's were like $2-3,000. You get a lot more for less money now. Also, my ISP bill 15 years ago was $10 less than my current ISP bill, but my connection went from 3Mb/s to 200Mb/s. I could get the 50Mb/s plan and it would be cheaper than my 15 years ago bill and still be over 10x faster. Business 101.

I see. You have no clue what you are talking about.

Internet prices were high in the early days because rolling out infrastructure was expensive. Business model: as prices went down, more people purchased internet service. ISPs increases revenue by getting more customers. That was the GROWTH phrase of the internet industry. Today the vast majority of people have internet service. There is little profit to be made in trying to expand service hence the ISPs have switched their strategy to increasing prices. 20-30yrs ago, Internet was considered option (in other words we had an electric demand for it), today internet is considered mandatory (inelastic, a utility) so people are willing to pay extra for more expensive internet service. The ISPs can take advantage of this change in consumer behavior to increase prices. This is strategy 101, marketing 101 and intermediate microeconomics 201.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Then you'll be glad to hear that after today's repeal it's more likely that someone would be willing to invest to build a competitor in your area, whereas that wasn't as attractive before to make an investment. Heck, maybe Netflix will be their own ISP soon lol

Nothing has stopped competitors from investing to this point - They just don't do it.
In fact, the large ISP's consciously avoid each others territory to keep their markets monopolized.

This is well documented. NN rules weren't hurting any investment. It is simply more profitable to be a monopoly.

 

[MadeTheSwitch]

And Trump isn’t getting impeached. There’s no crime so stop beating the dead horse.

Are you on the special council investigation team? No? Then you cannot possibly know that unless you have a crystal ball in which case I would like some sports scores or lotto numbers please.

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.

It is the case. Some in Ukraine want to be part of Russia but others don't. I am sure there was similar divided opinion at the time of the American revolution too.

 

[maelstromr]

So you didnt read whats behind the link? Too much truth in the source documents?

You are talking about GOP candidates as if they are the only ones "burning down the house." The otherside has been just as reckless. The position that HRC was going to take on TPP was just as egregious as this NN decision. The link is proof of what was really going on behind the scenes.

Ok, I'll take the bait this once. Assuming this email is legitimate, a bar for which WIKILEAKS has managed to fail on before, on this very topic, I don't see your point. I haven't endorsed HRC for all purposes, or claimed that she always acted perfectly the way I want her to. Horse trading happens in politics. Sometimes it's even damned distasteful. I might not enjoy the way the sausage was made, but I get sausage needs to get made somehow. This NN process is MARKEDLY different, and happened in the face of significant suspicious RUSSIAN activity (hey, your friends, Wikileaks know all about that kind of thing, don't they?!)

All of that aside, your straw man fails even on its face. Yes, I mean compromise like sometimes arbitrarily changing your position contrary to your beliefs in the pursuit of a bigger picture. Only children, religious fanatics and Trump supporters think there is only one path to a better overall picture.

 

[Thomas Veil]

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.

But...but...Obama was a totalitarian.

 

[ggibson913]

Sure, why is this bad? If the only alternative is to pay $60/month for high-speed connection and all I need is occassional access to Amazon and CNN, I would find these options quite appealing. The Net Neutrality doesn't seem to do jack sh*t about the local telecomm/broadband monpoly/duopoly that created the underlying problem in the first place by local gov't.

So rather than a regulation which states that an ISP may not control the content you view over the internet, you would rather hand that control over to your ISP because, they know what is best for you anyway? There is no upside to this for consumers, right now I pay my money to my ISP and they may not control any of the content I choose to consume, only the speed at which I consume it based on what I pay.

 

[killr_b]

I see. You have no clue what you are talking about.

Internet prices were high in the early days because rolling out infrastructure was expensive. Business model: as prices went down, more people purchased internet service. ISPs increases revenue by getting more customers. That was the GROWTH phrase of the internet industry. Today the vast majority of people have internet service. There is little profit to be made in trying to expand service hence the ISPs have switched their strategy to increasing prices. 20-30yrs ago, Internet was considered option (in other words we had an electric demand for it), today internet is considered mandatory (inelastic, a utility) so people are willing to pay extra for more expensive internet service. The ISPs can take advantage of this change in consumer behavior to increase prices. This is strategy 101, marketing 101 and intermediate microeconomics 201.

LOOOOOOOL no son, you're the one who has no clue what you're talking about. That is all just your opinion and isn't based on anything real. You don't even know how business works. Businesses make their products attractive to attract dollars. They don't just bully them out of you, that's the governments job.

 

[Cycling Asia]

If you voted for Trump, YOU did this. Thanks a lot, fools.

My response will be way off topic (sorry mods), but if Hillary had won, your emails would get lost in the internet and the recipient would never receive them, would you really want that?

Even more off topic (again, sorry mods) but when Trump said he would make America great again, I too thought he meant make it great for the people living there, but now I think he meant make it great for those companies who want to use it to make more money.

Sort of on topic (to appease the mods) So they roll back the laws governing the neutral internet and then create a position where someone (or some company / government agency) will police the "free" net to ensure it remains neutral... Hmmm. that makes sense.

 

[killr_b]

Nothing has stopped competitors from investing to this point - They just don't do it.
In fact, the large ISP's consciously avoid each others territory to keep their markets monopolized.

This is well documented. NN rules weren't hurting any investment. It is simply more profitable to be a monopoly.

Making deals son, making deals. If you're more free to make a good deal, then you are more likely to make a deal. There was no "Net Neutrality" they just used that name to "get the ball rolling" on their "let's make the internet a utility" takeover.