FCC Has Voted to Repeal Net Neutrality Rules

[Glockworkorange]

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

We will. Your lives will be the same tomorrow and the next day and the day after that....

The hysteria around this issue is astounding. Today I heard this is going to affect a woman's ability to get an abortion, foment racism, etc., etc.

Please breath. You will still have your Netflix.
[doublepost=1513295941][/doublepost]

How bad was the internet in 2015 before so called net neutrality was installed?

It wasn't.

And we will all be fine.

 

[usamaah]

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.

Enjoy the fear mongering.

Guess the internet didn't work at all or wasn't conducive to innovation prior to 2015...right?

Let's remove the question of whether you think that ISPs should be preemptively forbidden or punished after the fact for any actions that are bad for competition or for the consumer.

Now I ask, did the issue of Netflix being slowed in 2014 bother you? Or was Comcast OK to do that? If you believe it was OK for Comcast to do that, that's OK to (it is your opinion of course), but I think you have to understand that it does have consequences.

The innovation of the internet pre-2015 NN rules was because ISPs had not been prioritizing traffic large scale for most of the internet. (Home ISPs weren't, cellular companies were). But around 2012/2013 the ISPs were upset about all these private companies like Netflix and Google (YouTube) that were making money while the ISPs were being treated as dumb pipes.

I'm genuinely curious how you feel about this. Because I personally think it's OK to treat ISPs like dumb pipes. I personally think it's fine if they're relegated to being treated like my electric company (ComEd). ComEd should not charge me higher fees for electricity based on what I use my electricity for. My gas company should not charge me higher fees for different uses of gas. Similarly, I should not be charged differently for using my internet connection one way vs another.

I would be fine with this new change if there was better competition in the U.S. With deregulation, if a company did try to prioritize traffic but I had a choice between 5-10 really good companies, I could move my business elsewhere. Instead most US consumers have a choice between 1-2 really good ISPs in their area. If both companies do this, as a consumer you're stuck.

All the "innovation" that Ajit Pai talks about is Verizon or Comcast finding new ways to offer "services" that they can charge for which previously they would have no legal ability to do so. For example health telemonitor (doctors checking in using the internet in your home to monitor your pacemaker and defibrillator) is something an ISP can say is high priority and deserves to be charged extra. It hasn't happened yet, but this is something I do not think is OK. After all, we don't charge people extra for using electricity to store insulin or using water to take medicines, even though arguably those are "more important" uses for electricity and water.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Net neutrality is a distraction. The bigger problem that nobody is looking at is how ISPs have regional monopolies, that is the root of internet quality/prices.

The neutrality rules you're disagreeing with in your first sentence were specifically trying to help counter your second sentence.

I agree - Break up the monopolies, give me local loop unbundling and no rules and let's have REAL competition!
I'm all for it

 

[Altis]

Ok, fair enough, but do we need to bring that into this discussion?
I agree - the entrenched Tech companies are indeed becoming a big problem on their own.

I think it's very relevant since this is an Apple forum, Apple is vocally in favor of NN, yet their practices are every bit as anti-consumer. I just find it surprising the uproar over one while the other is not only ignored, but praised by many here.

You sure?

"After the repeal, ISPs will be able to block, throttle, and prioritize content in exchange for payment. They'll have to disclose those activities on their websites or by providing the information to the FCC, though they will not have to make those disclosures to consumers at the point of sale."

From: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...eal-helps-isps-keep-their-hidden-fees-hidden/

Perhaps I had read it wrong. I had understood that the ISPs would have to make it clear up front about the throttling.

At the very least, I can't imagine they can change you for additional services to remove the throttling without actively signing up for it.

Again, I'm not in favour of this. I think it should simply be bandwidth (speed and size).

 

[turbineseaplane]

Your lives will be the same tomorrow and the next day and the day after that....

So why get rid of the NN rules?

 

[shyam09]

Why do you think NN is just a left issue?

See page 1 .

Though I do agree it's not a left issue. But instead of whining and complaining (see page 1 again), all we have to do is strengthen the resolve to make sure this ruling gets reversed in Congress. I wish that was what the first page was more about (since it gets the most attention; and since the article doesn't mention that there is still a chance), so more people are aware of what to do next. We're united in this whether the left / right like it or not, since it affects everyone.

For folks reading this:

TEXT RESIST TO 50409 (it's a bot called ResistBot that will walk you through the process. You'll draft your own statement that you want to send and it'll fax it over for free. So it won't be a generic letter).

CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVES

SEND EMAILS / FAXES TO THEM AS WELL.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Apple is vocally in favor of NN

It's interesting you mentioned that. I found it odd how quiet the Big Tech companies were this time around on the NN front. They had been pretty loud about this in the past, but not so much this time. I think the entrenched players are excited about fast lanes/discrimination/free for all with money being the decider. They can afford it. They win. Competitors have a harder time gaining traction.

Perhaps I had read it wrong. I had understood that the ISPs would have to make it clear up front about the throttling.

At the very least, I can't imagine they can change you for additional services to remove the throttling without actively signing up for it.

I think you did read it wrong - That quote is directly pulled and untouched.

I wish I were as optimistic as you. I certainly CAN imagine these vampires doing anything they can get away with. They do it all the time. When you have "price lock in for services and no changes for 2 years", they invent "technology fees" to raise your prices in the mean time.

They can not and should not be trusted one single inch.

 

[gavroche]

Easy way? No. We have to have a base starting point of accuracy first before futher discussion can take place. State Dept. Vs CIA...not exactly the same thing..at all.

Now, as to your points...of course I don't think she was ignorant to classification. If someone wants to make a case out of that and prove it, good luck I wish them the best.

Yeah I am denying that "many" Obama officals pled the fifth. Define many.

Source to the hard drive thing? I'll address it when I know what you are looking at, although all this stuff is off topic, nothing to do with this thread and should be taken elsewhere. It does amaze me how many people want to deflect onto Hillary no matter the subject though.

I made a typo, as i was in a rush. I'm aware they are not exactly the same thing. And i get that you want to use this to somehow diminish my points.

1) If you agree that she was not ignorant about the classifications, then you agree that she lied under oath. And that she is pretty dishonest.

2) Here is a link to some of the officials under obama that pled the fifth: https://ntknetwork.com/flashback-nine-obama-administration-officials-who-pled-the-fifth-to-congress/

In the context of one administration, thats pretty significant... and not a trivial matter. I'm quite sure that if a Republican administration had those happen, you and others would be more aware of them and think they were more significant.

3) Here's a link to many of the remarkable "hard drive" issues: https://www.speaker.gov/general/all-president-s-missing-hard-drives

I'm not really off topic. Was responding to you and others talking about how corrupt Trump and Republicans are. But i have extremely little tolerance for hearing that from people that like to ignore issues from their party, and write it off as "no-one is perfect". The fact that you don't know about those major problems/issues demonstrates a complete case of willful ignorance, or willingness to accept corruption if its corruption by your guys.

 

[usamaah]

I don't think there is a sane person on the planet who didn't think the internet worked pretty well prior to 2015 allowing things like MacRumors, Netflix, ect. to come into existence.

How bad was the internet in 2015 before so called net neutrality was installed?

Net neutrality is a distraction. The bigger problem that nobody is looking at is how ISPs have regional monopolies, that is the root of internet quality/prices.

Again, the issue isn't that Netflix was able to come to rise. ISPs weren't misbehaving in the early days, but around 2014 Comcast (and other ISPs later) did start slowing down Netflix. There is ample data on the internet to show that once Netflix paid Comcast (and other ISPs) their internet speeds improved. Imaging this but with a disruptive new startup. ISPs now hold the power over simply letting the market decide.

I agree that regional monopolies is also an important issue, a very important one. If there were better regional competition, I would be more OK with not having a codified net neutrality rule in place because the market would solve it all (everyone would sign up for the one ISP not abusing their power).

However in our current state where most users have 1-2 ISP choices, it's very easy for ISPs to abuse their position.

SO yes I'd love to be in a world where we didn't have net neutrality rules, and to get there we need more ISPs, like 5-6 at least, per region. That isn't the case now. And ISPs actively block municipal broadband or Google Fiber from deploying because they want to protect their cartel-like control of areas. That is why I feel net neutrality had our backs. If the regional control was ever broken, then we could remove the net neutrality rules more safely.

 

[shyam09]

Please breath. You will still have your Netflix.

You don't seem to understand NN. They'll have their Netflix, but will they have to pay an extra $10/month for the streamers package or will Comcast (let's pretend that they are with Comcast) slow down the speed for Netflix? This is a serious issue (ISP monopolies are as well, but that's a separate topic).

 

[Glockworkorange]

But around 2012/2013 the ISPs were upset about all these private companies like Netflix and Google (YouTube) that were making money while the ISPs were being treated as dumb pipes.

They own, maintain, and invested in those pipes. They did the digging. And laid the cable, at land and sea. At great cost with great regulatory burden.

I know we all hate the ISP's. But I think half of the net neutrality folks care more about trying to screw the ISP's than anything else. Are we to deny them a profit? Or do they make too much? Perhaps you make too much?

The market will fix it (ducks as eggs, power tools and flaming piles of garbage are hurled)

 

[turbineseaplane]

All the "innovation" that Ajit Pai talks about is Verizon or Comcast finding new ways to offer "services" that they can charge for which previously they would have no legal ability to do so.

Well said. The innovation Pai has in mind is within the sphere of known players that already exist.
That's a really really crummy prospect for truly interesting innovation.

He did this to please his ISP donors (and former employers).
This is not good for people - It's good for large existing corporations.
[doublepost=1513296567][/doublepost]

They own, maintain, and invested in those pipes. They did the digging. And laid the cable, at land and sea. At great cost with great regulatory burden.

On whose land?
Using whose airspace (spectrum)
Under and through whose access points across cities and states?

The market will fix it

How can you say that when the only thing that helps is competition and we don't have it and don't have a path towards it?

 

[Glockworkorange]

You don't seem to understand NN. They'll have their Netflix, but will they have to pay an extra $10/month for the streamers package or will Comcast (let's pretend that they are with Comcast) slow down the speed for Netflix? This is a serious issue (ISP monopolies are as well, but that's a separate topic).

They weren't paying an extra $10 a month for a streamer's package the day before net neutrality and they won't have to pay for one tomorrow.
[doublepost=1513296672][/doublepost]

How can you say that when the only thing that helps is competition and we don't have it and don't have a path towards it?

"Competition" is not the government knee capping providers to the lowest common denominator.

 

[turbineseaplane]

"Competition" is not the government knee capping providers to the lowest common denominator.

Correct.

Competition is when multiple players are in a marketplace from which consumers can choose based upon the competitiveness of their offering.

That is not what our ISP landscape looks like and there is no path to get there being proposed.

By the way, simply enforcing "treat all data bits equally" is not "knee capping".
It's not asking them to do anything. It's asking them to NOT do something (treating bits differently).

 

[Glockworkorange]

He did this to please his ISP donors (and former employers).

His ISP donors? I forget, he's the elected representative of whome, exactly? Which election did these shadowy (and evil) corporations donate to?

 

[usamaah]

They own, maintain, and invested in those pipes. They did the digging. And laid the cable, at land and sea. At great cost with great regulatory burden.

I know we all hate the ISP's. But I think half of the net neutrality folks care more about trying to screw the ISP's than anything else. Are we to deny them a profit? Or do they make too much? Perhaps you make too much?

The market will fix it (ducks as eggs, power tools and flaming piles of garbage are hurled)

I don't know how other NN folks feel, but that was not exactly how I felt. I didn't want to "stick it" to Comcast. I've actually been pleased with Comcast service, except I do wish they were a little cheaper.

But to answer your statement of them having did all the hard work of laying cables at great cost, yes they did, they absolutely did. (Though sometimes they promised to do it, got paid, but never actually laid the cables, like Verizon's FiOS plans).

Were they losing money? Was Verizon or AT&T or Comcast predicting cash loss? No, of course not. They were still profiting. They were upset though that their infrastructure was letting other people make money.

But if you step back and look at the big picture: a well run government is basically the framework which allows a productive population and for innovative companies to be born (Apple, Google, they all owe the US Govt and its citizens because we've created an environment where they have talented individuals who they can use to succeed).

So I don't want ISPs to lose money, but they weren't losing money. Nor were they making too much. They were making exactly as much as the market was allowing them to. If an ISP charges too much (in my opinion), then I can switch to another ISP.

 

[Glockworkorange]

It's asking them to NOT do something

Limiting. Knee capping. Artificially restraining.

 

[usamaah]

His ISP donors? I forget, he's the elected representative of whome, exactly? Which election did these shadowy (and evil) corporations donate to?

Well we all know what the current situation is. He is emblematic of "the swamp" President Trump would talk about, IMO. Pai worked for Verizon (as Wheeler was a Cable guy before him) and these folks go into government, they are partially acting with personal conviction and partially thinking of their former employers, and then if during their tenure they manage to help their former corporations they are sometimes welcomed back after their government tenure is over and rewarded with a position.

Do I have proof? Can I cite specific examples with proof of all this? No. But this is how we all know it works. This is the revolving door of lobbyists and government employees that are working for corporations, and not consumers, that is the swamp that Trump purports to want to drain.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Limiting. Knee capping. Artificially restraining.

You have it backwards - The ISP's are the ones wanting to limit things, create a choke point and squeeze..

It's not healthy to allow that without a competitive landscape.

 

[usamaah]

Limiting. Knee capping. Artificially restraining.

Just like most consumers are knee capped when it comes to choosing ISPs.

EDIT: it's particular galling because Pai wants people to believe that Verizon's 4G LTE is a viable home ISP option so actually I should be counting them as a choice, rather than just Comcast and AT&T. (When I lived in Chicago, those were my only choices).

 

[turbineseaplane]

Just like most consumers are knee capped when it comes to choosing ISPs.

EDIT: it's particular galling because Pai wants people to believe that Verizon's 4G LTE is a viable home ISP option so actually I should be counting them as a choice, rather than just Comcast and AT&T. (When I lived in Chicago, those were my only choices).

yeah - lmfao
Home internet over LTE, where even "unlimited" gets deprioritized when over a phantom cap or people are actually using the network.

My unlimited AT&T is unusable in the evenings even before hitting 22GB/mo (the deprioritization level).

 

[dukebound85]

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.

please tell me what benefit you see from this? The internet is a lifeblood in today's world whether we like it or not

 

[Gasu E.]

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.

Unfortunately, States have little recourse but to sue-- the Internet is clearly interstate commerce, the regulation of which falls under Congress. "Under congress" would include any agencies Congress has specifically chartered, such as the FCC.

 

[MadeTheSwitch]

I made a typo, as i was in a rush. I'm aware they are not exactly the same thing. And i get that you want to use this to somehow diminish my points.

Diminish? I agreed with you on one and looked for more info on another. Hint: agreeing with you is not diminishing.

In the context of one administration, thats pretty significant... and not a trivial matter. I'm quite sure that if a Republican administration had those happen, you and others would be more aware of them and think they were more significant.

Nine. I don't consider that a lot in today's world. We'll probably end up with more than that in the current administration when all is said and done.

I'm not really off topic. Was responding to you and others talking about how corrupt Trump and Republicans are

Trump is in White House, Trump admin is deciding these things, thus talk about Trump is relevant. Whataboutism about the candidate who lost is not. Thanks for the link on the HD. I will read it later.

 

[gavroche]

Well, it’s cool to talk about ancient history, or we could talk about the fact that we have a President that blatantly put someone in charge of the FCC (that was so biased towards big business it is laughable), in order to destroy consumer protections and benefit big business.

Honestly, why are people still talking about ‘IF’ HRC had won, this or ‘that’ might have happened or are like you and live in the past, burying your head in the sand ignoring what is happening today! HRC didn’t win and quite frankly no one cares about her, except the defenders of Trump. You people need to wake up and move on with your lives.

I get what you are saying.... but what do you think is accomplished by saying things like "blatantly" put someone in charge... or "to destroy consumer protections"....
Statements like these do no good... because anyone that disagrees with you, who you should want to try to persuade to your thinking, is not going to respect or listen to what you have to say. Because guess what.... for a lot of these issues reasonable people can disagree on what is the best thing to do.... for perfectly valid reasons. And its pretty bold to think that because someone doesn't agree with you they want to "destroy" consumers.
As someone who's a bit older than the average person here and who's witnessed a lot of election cycles.. thats one of the biggest complaints i have about politics.. and about many of the Democrats I know. Its that they think all of their ideas are perfect.. and anyone that doesn't agree with them are morons, or corrupt criminals. But the truth is that on many issues both sides want the same outcomes, they just have different ideas for how to get there. And rather than just debate different ideas for solving a problem, they have to just create some other issue to distract you from the actual issue.