A positive out of this, is that hopefully people won't bother paying extra money for access to all the mainstream media sites like CNN, FOX, etc and the brainwashing/propaganda will cease?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
FCC Has Voted to Repeal Net Neutrality Rules
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
1973 - 2015 No Net "Neutrality"
2015 - 2017 Net "Neutrality"
2017 - ... No Net "Neutrality"
For all of you saying that the "Internet will end (as we know it)", my response is, "and I feel fine."
(With thanks to R.E.M.)
Oh yeah, one more thing...
"Net Neutrality" is a marketing term. It could have been called "Flargmaster Inimitus" with no change on what it actually did.
2015 - 2017 Net "Neutrality"
2017 - ... No Net "Neutrality"
For all of you saying that the "Internet will end (as we know it)", my response is, "and I feel fine."
(With thanks to R.E.M.)
Oh yeah, one more thing...
"Net Neutrality" is a marketing term. It could have been called "Flargmaster Inimitus" with no change on what it actually did.
'Net Neutrality' doesn't mean neutral, just like 'Affordable Car' Act doesn't mean affordable, just like 'Planned Parenthood' doesn't mean planning for parenthood, just like 'Progressivism' doesn't mean progress, just like 'Antifa' doesn't mean anti-fascist.
Just Words!
Just Words!
The idea of cord cutting was always a pipe dream. Did anyone really think the services PLUS internet, weren't going to cost, in the aggregate, as much as cable?
And why should it cost any less? It's like the Napster days. Everyone wants unlimited all the time for free, free, free, or low, low, cost. Unlimited cell phone data to stream music all day, 10 hours of Netflix a day....
Life doesn't work that way. When there is demand, prices will rise. When the market is new, sure, you might get away with it for awhile, but eventually, companies want to get paid and will adjust prices accordingly.
And people will continue to cry....
[doublepost=1513344922][/doublepost]
Competition is not handcuffing all companies so everyone is at the lowest common denominator.
[doublepost=1513345192][/doublepost]
Dude, he's not an elected representative. He doesn't have "donors." Your whole premise (or the OP's) is that he is beholden to some shadowy paymasters or a former employer. He...has...no...donors. Perhaps, just maybe, he truly believes this is a good policy.
1. WSJ is owned by same person as Fox News.
2. article is propaganda. NN has no impact on “innovation.”
[doublepost=1513345657][/doublepost]
They don’t understand that “free” market is freedom to raise prices.
Yeah I guess not. It’s a joke, and they will find out soon enough.
Sorry, “well he did it first” is not a valid excuse. Perhaps we should just look at the situation and try to bring people together. Trump was voted in because many felt their voices were not heard under Obama, and the same was going to happen under Clinton.
[doublepost=1513346548][/doublepost]
WSJ is a respected news source by many on both sides of the aisle actually.
I'll buy that for a .... oh wait many citizens of the USA will need to buy that for a dollar!
I recall back in 2001 when cellular providers set bundles for mobile phones.
1 package for basic internet
1 package for chat/social/MMS + picture messaging unlimited access (this data in MSN/AOL chat/etc didn't affect monthly data)
1 package for new smartphones using unlimited data = HP iPaq 6400 series.
(remember the failed throttling for the first month of roll-out on T-Mobile USA?!)
1 package just for BlackBerry users - in the heyday of the 7270 times back then.
2 package for the SideKick users (1 for data, another for data + voice).
1 package for unlimited data + voice for Nokia NGage QD users.
About the same time frame ... many in the USA had "enjoyed" AOL for internet packages:
$9.99/mth for basic features - yet the internet was ONLY through their web portal
- EVERTHING!
$49.99/mth allowed you free unlimited internet (via browser, applications etc)
Seems like AOL will be the internet once again.
The sell: in order to facilitate faster cellular speeds on route to 5G we need to monetize services that best suit the increasing and existing landscape of users/business/devices across the country.
They'll just charge you extra for VPN traffic transiting your ISP.
No free pass for anyone in life. I am critical of both when they deserve, and he was not my first choice. I was merely showing the opposite of their comment and that you can play it both ways. The fact is if Trump was so unpopular then why wasn’t Clinton elected? She was more unpopular.
I personally don’t even know President’s Trumps stance on net neutrality and although it seems like a regulation I would support, I think the jury is still out on if it’s actually a good thing. I think the Internet was doing just fine before 2015, no? If this provides more private investment into our network that’s not a bad thing, as long as it remains open, which apparently they will be monitoring.
People keep saying "watch out republicans! you might get what you wished for!" And I'm like yeah? We love all of this. We approve of what Trump is doing. We are told that its gonna come back to bite us, but so far everything is great. So I'm not sure what all the fear mongering is about. I saw a post the other day that said " if you are not freaking out about net neutrality, you really need to be." lol. Somehow the internet worked fine all of years before it, and it will be fine after it.
I don't believe I ever mentioned anything about suing anyone.
That's great that you have 3 choices, but the vast majority of Americans have the choice of two. Verizon is generally not an option for home internet, maybe not even for you. It's not the speed of Verizon, it's that most Cellular LTE services have a cap of 22GB or something like that for the month. You'd burn through that pretty fast with video services.
Rather than engaging in a conversation about the merits, or lack thereof, of Net Neutrality it seems you want everyone to accept it and move on. If one feels a policy decision is bad, just because it's law does not mean one must accept it.
Listen to yourself. What carrier would cut out amazon? Believe it or not, they have to provide services of good value or people will cancel. Its that simple. Doesnt matter if there is no other competition in the area. If you are known as a provider that doesnt allow amazon and netflix, guess what, you are out of business.
Perhaps you are again mixing up my comments with others. I never claimed he was an elected representative. You do not need to be elected to be in someone's pocket.
One could argue that you're already beholden to the person who appointed you to said position. But in Ajit Pai's case, he had this position before Trump, he was appointed by Obama. I already said that I believe he has a mix of personal convictions combined with his personal ties (previous employers) which influences his decision to skew towards large corporate interests rather than consumer interest.
It's disingenuous or perhaps naive of you to automatically and categorically think anyone who is "not an elected representative" cannot be influenced by someone.
I'm not talking about Netflix raising their price. I'm talking about my ISP making me pay an access fee to use Netflix which can happen now and most likely they will try.
Wait, so you're saying if it's the only ISP in town and they block amazon.com (or slow it), that people will just stop signing up and use their cellular internet for their monthly internet needs until the ISP caves to market demands? is that what happened with Netflix in 2014 when service over Comcast was slow?
People that have only one option for an ISP will not cancel they can't. And providers have worked very hard to be the only provider in many places.
Last edited:
First, I never said I was an authority and writing an essay doesn't make me one, certainly.
I believe I do have some basic understanding of the difference. So to your point that you want me to address, I would point out that Netflix wasn't paying Level 3 or Cogent, they had to pay Comcast directly.
At some point I think it's totally reasonable if a company as large as Netflix is causing that much traffic for an ISP to do what Comcast did. But my concern is what if the service is a new fledgling company? Without NN there could be many more companies and services that could be killed before they get off the ground.
[doublepost=1513348954][/doublepost]
Yes, but it does not change the argument I was making about the need for a neutral infrastructure to allow for a healthy competitive market place for products and services.
Do you understand whats going to happen? Based on your statement you don't. Now all 3 of those providers are going to control what content you can use on their networks. How is that good?
You want to watch Netflix- that going to be an extra charge
Amazon prime- oh that is yet another charge
Hulu- yep another charge
All of the streaming services will cost you more money. Enjoy paying out the a** for internet.
Of course the internet will work fine. Its just that the providers are now officially allowed to ***ck you from any angle they want. I think its hilarious that particularly a country that prides itself on the idea of individual freedom (ideology of the majority of current government voters) would be ok with corporate entities screwing around with that very freedom. Or does the concept of freedom only extend to the idea of waving guns around and litter where one pleases?
For those saying why didn't it happen before. High speed broadband, consumer technology, and services, were not close to the level we have today.
As I previous stated, expect the same as usual for a year or two, then out of nowhere get shocked with BS packaged structures these ISPs introduce. And you can quote me on this .... Comcast is not going to keep their word.
As I previous stated, expect the same as usual for a year or two, then out of nowhere get shocked with BS packaged structures these ISPs introduce. And you can quote me on this .... Comcast is not going to keep their word.
Wrong just completely wrong. For most of the time before Net Neutrality came into play, we had dialup internet which was on peoples telephone lines. Internet providers were not allowed to mess with those. Since 2015 this country has been headed toward cord cutting, which is hurting the ISPs. Now they are in bed with the politicians to get the money back for cable cutters. This only helps these greedy billon dollar companies, and hurts the consumer.
[doublepost=1513349595][/doublepost]
We can already see the providers doing it. Comcast owns NBC now, and they had to sign an agreement they would not prioritize that over anything else. Well that ends in 2018, and they have removed that writing from their site. Next year we will start to see the change with companies like this. Just wait until At&t gets Time Warner.
Please do excuse my typo... Obama was a constitutional scholar who had no business running for office. He was a community organizer who fast tracked his way to the white office by selling a lie. My health insurance isn’t even insurance. Incomes across the board were stagnant, regulation was out of control. I’m just not remembering the glorious years between Jan 2009-Jan 2017. I’m also no fan of Bush or Republicans. You have to either be lying to yourself or just plain ignorant to support the Democrats or Republicans after what they’ve done to the county. I do agree with you in that we need some regulation. Absolutely. We have cronie capitalist/democracy in the US instead a republic, which is what we are supposed to be. He right wants deregulation yet they can’t control the greed and environmental shortsightedness. The left wants to be in your business and regulate every facet of your life to keep you dependent on the government. A scary scenario. I affiliate to no party but common sense. We have no common sense in American Politics and haven’t for a long time.
My point is the internet up until 2015 was just fine. I have no reason to believe it won’t remain that way. I’m not an Anarcho-libertarian as you so eloquently put. I would have to identify most closely to what Ron Paul stands for which is nothing like anarchy. Just common sense. Trump has the emotional capacity of my 3 year old. But we got Trump because we had the left running the country into the ground for the last 8 years. Honestly, we have millions of people who actually support people like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner year after year. That qualifies as worse than stupidity.
You’re really stuck on her emails, which were investigated by the FBI, after multiple people from Trump’s campaign and administration have now been charged with federal crimes? Trump has lied more in the first year of his presidency than Obama had for eight years. He has had to settle fraud charges over his own businesses and his son and daughter nearly were arrested for fraud. The list goes on and on and on. Clinton’s biggest crime is being a bad politician and a worse candidate.
Yes the healthcare is one of the reasons I don’t want to move.
Also sounds silly but the standard of driving is another. We have some of the safest roads in the world here in the U.K. and believe it or not, some of the better drivers.
The standard of driving in the US scared the hell out of me, it’s appauling.
Corrupt/dangerous Police is another. Our Policing is some of the best in the world.
It’s sort of 50-50, I wish I could pick and choose bits from the U.K. to bring to the US.