FCC Has Voted to Repeal Net Neutrality Rules

[ggibson913]

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...

You are correct, ISP having an monopoly has nothing to do with Net Neutrality, it is only applicable to the argument that if your ISP screws you go get a new one

 

[JamiLynee]

The more I read about this, the madder I'm getting. Seriously? Is nothing safe from government reach anymore?

 

[turbineseaplane]

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.

The only "deals" that will be upcoming will be further consolidation of monopolized markets.
If you think that's in your personal interest, we simply disagree.

 

[ggibson913]

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.

Uncontrolled Capitalism was great in the early 20th Century, that was until 1929 that is.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Today has been a good day to expand my "ignore list" for the site.

 

[Altis]

You are correct, ISP having an monopoly has nothing to do with Net Neutrality, it is only applicable to the argument that if your ISP screws you go get a new one

As long as there are other viable options. We have more of a duopoly here in Canada, but it hardly makes a difference. We still pay some of the highest telecom prices in the world.

 

[Nicksd84]

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.

It’s not fear mongering. When there’s fast and slow lanes changing the way the internet has fundamentally worked it’s a problem. Yes there are trade offs with that approach, but it’s worked well so far. Removing net neutrality rules plays into the favor of higher bills and tiered access.

 

[killr_b]

I think that user is likely just trolling

You think I'm a troll? I've been here since 2005

Edit: lol everyone who disagrees with me is a troll and goes on my ignore list.

 

[ToroidalZeus]

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.

Good Job not address any of my points Mr. Business 101. Everything I stated was common knowledge in your MBA program, you know the same MBA courses the CEOs of these ISPs attended.

Business Profit = Revenue (Quantity * Price) - Costs
Business can increase profits by decreasing cost, increasing prices, or increasing quality. Or all 3.
NN is an example of increasing prices.

 

[Peace]

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.

Can you explain just exactly HOW my emails would get lost and not delivered under Clinton ?

 

[M.PaulCezanne]

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?

Virtually all of us have no choice of broadband ISP. Actual competition is very rare. Even if it weren’t, this rule ensures all ISPs will gouge consumers.

 

[ggibson913]

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.

Where did you get your business degree? I would like to know so I don't accidentally send any kids there. Was it Trump University?

 

[Lloydbm41]

This is what happens when you elect a President that favors big business over the citizenry. You get a Verizon lawyer that takes over the FCC and then ensures his old company can rape its customers even more than they already do!

 

[PizzaBoxStyle]

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.

I can't even.

Where did the claim of "suspicios russian activity" come from? John Podesta. The campaign manger for HRC. That kicked off a neo-mccarthy witch-hunt by the left, who were unable to accept that HRC lost to Trump (I'm still surprised, TBH), after "credible" publications kept repeating over and over again that Trump stood no chance. Give it another month or so, and watch when this whole Russia thing goes quiet in the media. It'll be on to some new distraction to keep help everyone have their daily 2 minutes of hate.

The Russians probably did try to influence the election. Other nation-states probably did too. Hell, our government went over our heads and influenced France's 2012 election with propaganda. They all do it. And that IS distasteful. These claims about the Russians "hacking" our election are dubious though. I'm still yet to see any evidence that our polling machines/infrastructure were compromised by the Russians.

Also, you'll have to provide some proof about Wikileaks not being credible. I haven't been able to find much on that, and I'd generally welcome some insight. For the Podesta email series, I believe they published the public key along with these emails to verify that they did in fact come from Google's Gmail servers.

 

[killr_b]

Good Job not address any of my points Mr. Business 101. Everything I stated was common knowledge in your MBA course, you know the same MBA courses the CEOs of these ISPs attended.

Business Profit = Revenue (Quantity * Price) - Costs

Business can increase profits by decreasing cost, increasing prices, or increasing quality. Or all 3.
NN is an example of increasing prices.

It was actually cheaper to offer the internet back in the day. Phone lines were already laid. Underground cable lines were already laid. The problem is they have limited bandwidth. Companies spent massive amounts to build out the new infrastructure, with help from government funding too because it's good investment, and now we have fiber backends and fiber networks, etc.

Why would a business increase quality to increase earnings? Oh that's right, to attract new customers. If someone threatens to lay a new network where you have a market will you, a) decrease or offer lower-tier pricing for fierce competition b) charge more c) do nothing, or d) try to make your current offerings more attractive?

 

[joueboy]

Those companies is been doing it anyway despite the regulation and the FCC is not doing anything to implement such regulation. What I don't understand is that it took Obama until the end of his term to get this thing approved, if this has been implemented early within the first year when he got elected we would have notice a a huge change. More regulation has been passed if that has been there for 7 years and those companies would have a different mindset. This is obviously a political moved by previous administration which they already known that this would be overturned. I hate this politicians playing games with the us and this being overturned is as worst as being passed and approved by the previous administration when he's about to leave.

 

[stevet]

Well done Trump voters. Hope you're enjoying America becoming great again

And by Trump voters you mean anyone that voted for Hillary right? Cause if those dummies voted for a real candidate Trump would have had no shot at all.

 

[David G.]

The more I read about this, the madder I'm getting. Seriously? Is nothing safe from government reach anymore?

Are you being ironic on purpose???

 

[macTW]

“Oh this is so trumps fault. Even though the FCC was the one who wrote it and voted.”

Smh

 

[stevet]

Well, time to look for VPNs...

Apparently you aren't fully grasping the technology and the laws at this point. VPN's aren't going to solve the problem.

 

[ToroidalZeus]

It was actually cheaper to offer the internet back in the day. Phone lines were already laid. Underground cable lines were already laid. The problem is they have limited bandwidth. Companies spent massive amounts to build out the new infrastructure, with help from government funding too because it's good investment, and now we have fiber backends and fiber networks, etc.

Why would a business increase quality to increase earnings? Oh that's right, to attract new customers. If someone threatens to lay a new network where you have a market will you, a) decrease or offer lower-tier pricing for fierce competition b) charge more, or c) try to make your current offerings more attractive?

You are really uneducated, did you get a tier-3-school business degree?

1. You agreed with me that companies needed to spend a lot of money on infrastructure, which now has been paid off hence the prices (or technically speed/$) were able to lower over time.

2. ISP industry has natural barriers (specifically the difficulty in getting permits to run new line and the time it takes to setup such a network). Hence there is no threat of new entrants to the market which allows ISPs to have an oligopoly (near monopoly).

 

[tgwaste]

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.

Exactly. Nothing will change and the left will just move on to their next fantasy.

Hey Left, Maybe you should be concentrating on getting the government to stop the Cable company monopoly. You DO realize this and Net Neutrality are two different things right?

 

[Z400Racer37]

HRC was a corrupt piece of ****. Sure maybe NN would have survived but she didn’t deserve the presidency either. I pray the American people wake up and demand quality, honest, hard working, proven candidates who have shown through action they care about the American people above all else in future elections. No more of this well they suck but they are on team so I’ll vote for them.

Hear here. unfortunately... They won't demand them, and we'll get the sane **** show we've gotten for decades now.

"But her emails..."

Hopefully we can roll this back after 2020

Lots of lawsuits coming.

Well done Trump voters. Hope you're enjoying America becoming great again

Well done, USA, great progress

Yeah, pretty sure they will just do it anyway and take the $10,000 fine, which they know will never actually be enforced under Trump/Pai anyway.

"There will still be cops on the beat guarding a free and open Internet."

No there won't Ajit. You are the cops, and just took everyone off duty. Now all that's left is Pall Blart who can't do anything except yell "stop".

This post is blocked by Verizon. Please pay 49.99 to read the content.

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.

OHHH the HUMANITYYYY they all plead. On the internet. ......... Which still works fine..... In spite of their warnings...... Just like it did before Net Neutrality was passed................................

#RealityCheck #ToHellWithReality

 

[tooltalk]

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.

That's not what's happening here, is it? In this particular case, your ISP is offering small subsets of what's out there for a fraction of the full-access cost and you decide based on your needs.

I need high-speed full-access to the internet, especially Github, HackerNews, JSTOR and many other things for work, daily, but my aging parents only need access to news and youtube sites occasionally -- I'm likewise willing to pay much higher price for my full-access whereas it makes less sense for my older parents to pay the same.

 

[ggibson913]

I can't even.

Where did the claim of "suspicios russian activity" come from? John Podesta. The campaign manger for HRC. That kicked off a neo-mccarthy witch-hunt by the left, who were unable to accept that HRC lost to Trump (I'm still surprised, TBH), after "credible" publications kept repeating over and over again that Trump stood no chance. Give it another month or so, and watch when this whole Russia thing goes quiet in the media. It'll be on to some new distraction to keep help everyone have their daily 2 minutes of hate.

The Russians probably did try to influence the election. Other nation-states probably did too. Hell, our government went over our heads and influenced France's 2012 election with propaganda. They all do it. And that IS distasteful. These claims about the Russians "hacking" our election are dubious though. I'm still yet to see any evidence that our polling machines/infrastructure were compromised by the Russians.

Also, you'll have to provide some proof about Wikileaks not being credible. I haven't been able to find much on that, and I'd generally welcome some insight. For the Podesta email series, I believe they published the public key along with these emails to verify that they did in fact come from Google's Gmail servers.

Hardly a witch hunt, the administration lied repeatedly denying that anyone ever even met with the Russians the it turns out they ALL met with the Russians. Including Trump Jr., Sessions (perjury), Kushner, Page, and Papodopulus. Not to mention Flynn lying about it as well. That certainly warrants investigation, I will take the word of all 17 of our intelligence services over anyone in the Trump administration or on Fox news any day of the week or twice on Sunday. I do not however think that the President actually met with them other than their visit to the White House where he disclosed classified information to them. As far as those above, I think they should be tried in court, there is more than enough evidence.