FCC Has Voted to Repeal Net Neutrality Rules

[belvdr]

In the big picture, it restricts the free market. Putting limits on what private companies can do like paid prioritization is no bueno. There's no reason to have government involved in that.

It's not restricting the free market though. In my regional area, there have been few broadband providers since broadband was a thing. Many of them merged prior to NN, so now we have two. NN comes and now goes. How did it restrict the free market? By the way, these are publicly traded companies, not private.

So again, we're back to "big government". Should they not limit any company on anything? Where do you draw the line and why with this?

 

[Iphoneness]

It's not restricting the free market though. In my regional area, there have been few broadband providers since broadband was a thing. Many of them merged prior to NN, so now we have two. NN comes and now goes. How did it restrict the free market?

Paid prioritization is an example. You can pay extra to get a fast lamborghini... Why can't a company pay extra to have their data delivered faster to the consumer?

 

[belvdr]

Paid prioritization is an example. You can pay extra to get a fast lamborghini... Why can't a company pay extra to have their data delivered faster to the consumer?

Bad analogy and you didn't answer my question about free market restrictions.

An equivalent would be we both have the same car (ISP speeds). You are limited to 1/3 of my speed because you're going north and I'm going south. You're limited based on direction, not what you purchased.

Why should limits be placed on traffic? A better question is should those who handle core Internet routing be in the content business, so they don't have a reason to throttle?

 

[harriska2]

It's not restricting the free market though. In my regional area, there have been few broadband providers since broadband was a thing. Many of them merged prior to NN, so now we have two. NN comes and now goes. How did it restrict the free market? By the way, these are publicly traded companies, not private.

So again, we're back to "big government". Should they not limit any company on anything? Where do you draw the line and why with this?

Ugh, sorry, I think you are replying and the quote isn’t showing for me so I’m confused. Please ignore.

I don’t know - maybe you are mixing big government with a corrupt/lobbied government? Shouln’t it be for the people, by the people? Doesn’t feel that way. Feels more like a plutocracy or corporatocracy. There’s a solution for that and making the government smaller is not going to help.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Saw this on Twitter from user @normative and I fear he is right:

"I suspect the doomsday approach to net neutrality is going to backfire badly. Because if the sophisticated neutrality arguments are right, the actual harms are all going to be pretty much invisible to the end user. The visible effects will be stuff people like."

 

[mike1123]

NN does not increase the cost of entry to the market. Please post up sources.

NN also increases infrastructure spending.
https://arstechnica.com/information...-investment-according-to-the-isps-themselves/

The reason small ISPs can't break into new markets and increase competition is because giant monopolies like Comcast crush all competition, lobby and legislate it so it's next to impossible for startups. Hell Google has basically given up because of the bureaucracy and legal nightmare that is in place. How the hell is some small ISP meant to manage?

You mean the FCC? Ajit Pai, the corrupt Verizon Lawyer now in charge of the FCC is wanting to basically strip all control away from the FCC to control ISPs - which is meant to be the FCCs job. Please don't be so unbelievably naive and ill informed. Also things weren't just 'fine' before Title 2 was introduced, quite the opposite. ISPs were routinely found to be doing illegal and nefarious things. There's quite a good list actually earlier in this thread.

Do you even know what Title 2 and Net Neutrality are?

No, I mean the FTC. Consumer protection. Antitrust. Look into it. The very lobbying and legislation that companies like Comcast are pushing for would have increased with Net Neutrality.

With the FTC back in charge, companies like Google, Twitter, and Facebook can't censor based on political views because that would be considered unfair trade practices. And they have done so, very, very frequently. There's a reason they were against this repeal.

The real threat to the open internet is not the ISPs. It's Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc... who utilize special algorithms to place what they want where they want it. That is censorship, and that is the true danger of so-called "Net Neutrality". How is it that these companies are allowed to filter and choose what we see, but that's not considered an infringement on our rights to a free and fair internet?

Not to mention, under the 2015 Net Neutrality rules, those "selective" internet packages were LEGAL. Do you think that free video streaming on a mobile data plan is an expression of Net Neutrality? No, it's selective filtering.

As for a source that Net Neutrality has hurt newer and smaller players in the market, here is a letter penned by 70 small broadband providers back in May.
http://www.wispa.org/Portals/37/Docs/Press Releases/70_WISPS_Letter.pdf?ver=2017-05-09-125315-817

Here is the corresponding press release (http://www.wispa.org/News/wispa_news_07-17-17_Restoring_Internet_Freedom), which clearly mentions the following:

For example, in a recent WISPA member survey, 80 percent of respondents said the uncertainties surrounding Title II regulation had caused delays and cutbacks in network expansion and services, and had imposed significant compliance costs.

“The Commission cannot have it both ways: it cannot impose disproportionate burdens on small broadband providers at the same time that it expects them to drive future deployment to our nation’s unserved communities and those where consumers lack competitive choice,” the filing states.

 

[spazzcat]

Yeah that is what I am saying I have never had a problem with netflix in my life on comcast. Over 6 years.
[doublepost=1513353783][/doublepost]
Its not water. You do not need an internet connection in the home.

What does internet not being water have to do with anything. And being a programmer that primary does web work. Yes, I do need internet at my home.

 

[turbineseaplane]

With the FTC back in charge, companies like Google, Twitter, and Facebook can't censor based on political views because that would be considered unfair trade practices.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...ll-protect-consumers-after-repeal-fcc-claims/

"FTC Commissioner Terrell McSweeny, a Democrat, has said repeatedly that the FTC cannot enforce net neutrality as effectively as the FCC. The FCC has broad rule-making authority and expertise in network engineering that the FTC lacks, McSweeny told Ars in April.

Moreover, the FTC’s jurisdiction over Internet service providers is uncertain. Pai’s plan would shift authority from the FCC to the FTC by eliminating the common carrier classification of broadband. But a pending court case involving AT&T could end up stripping the FTC of any regulatory authority over ISPs that also operate common-carrier phone networks."

“The FTC’s authority in this matter is in question, and an MOU does nothing to answer those concerns,” Rosenworcel said today.

 

[Michael Goff]

Paid prioritization is an example. You can pay extra to get a fast lamborghini... Why can't a company pay extra to have their data delivered faster to the consumer?

Except that’s nonsense. I’m paying for the extra fast lambo by paying extra for higher speeds on my end. This is why car analogies are stupid.

 

[magicman32]

Uhhh well, a few examples: the stock market is up over 5 trillion, unemployment is at the lowest it's been in 17 years, and 1.5 million new jobs created in the last year.
[doublepost=1513358596][/doublepost]
Having more things under the control of the government. Big government is bad and not what this country was founded upon. Free markets, like what have been promoted and implemented in the last year have had a great positive effect on our population. You want government control, go to China or NK. The Don is president through 2024 and things will only get better from here.

Continuing off-topic but this simplistic, echo chamber fodder is too good:

Numbers that continued on the back Obama economic momentum since he took office while gripped in a deep recession. Dropped it from 7.8 to 4.7. Very different circumstances both entered in. One had to clean up the mess Son of a Bush created while the other inherited what was akin to a “World Series-ready” situation.

Things will get even better for people, that’s true. If by “people” you mean the coroporate and lobbyist-types. They gotta get paid back somehow from his swamp. The middle class? Bend over. Or die in the streets. Well most of the sensible among us knew who Trump was going to cater too.

2024, huh? Dear lord this post isn’t going to age well. I very much look forward to it.
[doublepost=1513363638][/doublepost]

The next Democrat president is going to waste his or her entire 4 to 8 years just trying to clean up Trump’s giant, flaming bag of poop and it still won’t be enough.

Kinda like the last guy who was handed the keys to a Republican mess that was created?

Interesting trend developing. They own this one, all on their own. Hello November 2018. It’s already started, most recently in Alabama.

 

[8281]

No no no. Her and her husband are crooks. Nearly every politician in America is a crook. This is why we are the shape we’re in. End of story.

I think that’s what high school kids believe is an edgy opinion, when the truth is far more complicated.

 

[JeffyTheQuik]

Phone Neutrality -

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.

I'll take non-sequitur for $2000, Alex.

My point on both cases is that "Net Neutrality" started in 2015, and the Internet was just fine without it. The Boogey Men that the "Net Neutrality" side had not come into fruition, nor were they in work. They were simply "Boogey men" for the purpose of causing fear, and fear leads to reaction. Your justification for "Net Neutrality" shows the Boogey Man argument. It's suspicion, fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

I'll agree with you. From 1973, when Al Gore and his friends at DARPAnet were working on the Internet, all we had was dial up, however, broadband started coming online in the late 90's (1999-2001), I had it in 2000, in Kissimmee, FL, so yes, a majority of those 42 years was with dial-up lines. Oh, as a point, it was horribly expensive to get a T1 line, or a partial T1, and then came people like Netcom, that made dial up $20/month in 1994. Yeah, all that without "Net Neutrality"

With cord cutters, and not having the government regulating the Internet, the ISPs have to get in bed with their consumers. Freedom isn't pretty, but it's the safest, fastest way to get innovation. Imagine if I come up with an idea to have Terabit Internet, and I have to go to the government to get it approved, and those same ISPs don't want that, and they have the regulator's palms greased. I get turned down, and my idea gets bought, on the cheap, by the ISP making the complaint, and then they take their team to the FCC.

Contrast this with the free market, which the Internet has been. You want to pay $30/month for Internet with limits? Go ahead. You want to pay $50 for unlimited 100MB? Go ahead. Want to pay $100/month for unlimited GB Internet? Go for it.

Just don't make me pay $75 for 30MB Internet, and stifle the incentive for development. I know this sounds crazy, but the Internet isn't a right, nor is it necessary for life. Name 3 things that were a problem that the government made better, outside of the items listed in Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution.

 

[GoldenJoe]

It's really funny reading the salty comments about net neutrality on this forum, which is dedicated to a company that:

1) is half of a duopoly that completely controls the app market

2) charges developers for access to their customers, taking 30% of all their revenue with no upper limit

3) controls which apps get shown at the top of the list when users perform a search

4) allows large corporations to buy their way to the top of the list

5) can and does remove apps at their own discretion with no right to appeal

Oh, but removing some Obama regulations is so unfair. It's going to kill the internet. Soon Fox will be the only news network around. Clutch your pearls, the ship is going down!

 

[whitesand]

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

Oh my!!!!!! The internet was so horrrible before 2015!!!!! Dude get a grip...
[doublepost=1513365057][/doublepost]

It's really funny reading the salty comments about net neutrality on this forum, which is dedicated to a company that:

1) is half of a duopoly that completely controls the app market

2) charges developers for access to their customers, taking 30% of all their revenue with no upper limit

3) controls which apps get shown at the top of the list when users perform a search

4) allows large corporations to buy their way to the top of the list

5) can and does remove apps at their own discretion with no right to appeal

Oh, but removing some Obama regulations is so unfair. It's going to kill the internet. Soon Fox will be the only news network around. Clutch your pearls, the ship is going down!

Welcome to the realm of leftist hypocracy...
[doublepost=1513365300][/doublepost]Isn't it interesting how all the extreme leftists side with the huge corporations like google, apple, Facebook etc etc with neutrality?
Like Ronald Reagan said " if fascism ever comes to America it will be under the guise of liberalism".

 

[Michael Goff]

Phone Neutrality -

I'll take non-sequitur for $2000, Alex.

My point on both cases is that "Net Neutrality" started in 2015, and the Internet was just fine without it. The Boogey Men that the "Net Neutrality" side had not come into fruition, nor were they in work. They were simply "Boogey men" for the purpose of causing fear, and fear leads to reaction. Your justification for "Net Neutrality" shows the Boogey Man argument. It's suspicion, fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

I'll agree with you. From 1973, when Al Gore and his friends at DARPAnet were working on the Internet, all we had was dial up, however, broadband started coming online in the late 90's (1999-2001), I had it in 2000, in Kissimmee, FL, so yes, a majority of those 42 years was with dial-up lines. Oh, as a point, it was horribly expensive to get a T1 line, or a partial T1, and then came people like Netcom, that made dial up $20/month in 1994. Yeah, all that without "Net Neutrality"

With cord cutters, and not having the government regulating the Internet, the ISPs have to get in bed with their consumers. Freedom isn't pretty, but it's the safest, fastest way to get innovation. Imagine if I come up with an idea to have Terabit Internet, and I have to go to the government to get it approved, and those same ISPs don't want that, and they have the regulator's palms greased. I get turned down, and my idea gets bought, on the cheap, by the ISP making the complaint, and then they take their team to the FCC.

Contrast this with the free market, which the Internet has been. You want to pay $30/month for Internet with limits? Go ahead. You want to pay $50 for unlimited 100MB? Go ahead. Want to pay $100/month for unlimited GB Internet? Go for it.

Just don't make me pay $75 for 30MB Internet, and stifle the incentive for development. I know this sounds crazy, but the Internet isn't a right, nor is it necessary for life. Name 3 things that were a problem that the government made better, outside of the items listed in Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution.

Net Neutrality existed before 2015. You’re thinking of the Title II classification that came into play because companies sued the FCC saying they didn’t have the power to regulate them under Title I.

 

[belvdr]

It's really funny reading the salty comments about net neutrality on this forum, which is dedicated to a company that:

1) is half of a duopoly that completely controls the app market

2) charges developers for access to their customers, taking 30% of all their revenue with no upper limit

3) controls which apps get shown at the top of the list when users perform a search

4) allows large corporations to buy their way to the top of the list

5) can and does remove apps at their own discretion with no right to appeal

Oh, but removing some Obama regulations is so unfair. It's going to kill the internet. Soon Fox will be the only news network around. Clutch your pearls, the ship is going down!

When has Apple ever throttled my access to other services to benefit themselves (i.e. QoS or plain firewalling)? They don't do that on the ATV (that I'm aware of).

Oh my!!!!!! The internet was so horrrible before 2015!!!!! Dude get a grip...
[doublepost=1513365057][/doublepost]

Welcome to the realm of leftist hypocracy...
[doublepost=1513365300][/doublepost]Isn't it interesting how all the extreme leftists side with the huge corporations like google, apple, Facebook etc etc with neutrality?
Like Ronald Reagan said " if fascism ever comes to America it will be under the guise of liberalism".

What's with the labeling? I'm for NN and am far from being a leftist or an "extreme leftist". Good job making assumptions.

EDIT: Evidently my Friday reading capabilities stink. Ignore that last comment.

 

[samcraig]

Are there still people arguing in favor of the repeal? Mind-boggling.

 

[villicodelirant]

How is government regulation 'Free & Open'?

It's not. The provider is, in fact, not all free to do what the hell it pleases.
That's the good part.

Can a self-described 'Genius' Obama loving Democrat/Bernie Socialist/Neo-Liberal with countless years of higher institutional learning experience please explain to me - How government choosing winners and losers is 'OPEN'?

I'm a certified genius with a master's degree, although I don't meet your second requirement as I'm kind of left leaning.
Nevertheless I'll be happy to explain anything to you.
But first, please explain to me what you just wrote.
Who choosing what is open?

These same people who cry over a 'Free & Open' Internet are the same people burning down Universities over 'Free Speech' THEY DON'T LIKE - Give me a F'n break!

I'm sorry, care to elaborate/make an example?
I may have missed a piece of news.

Jeez. Sometimes you don't get what you want in life and your side doesn't win. Move. On.

It's not a reason to stop believing in what is right, is it?
"Wrong" is still wrong, even with 95% approval.

Note that, for context, I'm in favour of "net neutrality" and very much against the idea of having more than exactly one state-owned provider, as was the norm in my country until a few years ago.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Nothing sounds as "wonderful" as a law that Comcast helps to create... /s

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/...*****-Net-Neutrality-Law-It-Will-Write-140896

 

[villicodelirant]

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.

Don't be so hard on yourself.

 

[deanthedev]

Oh my!!!!!! The internet was so horrrible before 2015!!!!! Dude get a grip...

Don’t need to. Perhaps you should learn to read. I’m not talking about this decision only - I’m talking about the entire $hitstorm that revolves around Trump. An absolutely worthless human being.

 

[villicodelirant]

My point is the internet up until 2015 was just fine.

I disagree passionately.
By 2015 the Internet was the hellhole that we know today.
What's more, what was sufficient back then will not be sufficient in the future.

For better or worse, the Internet is now your (international) newsstand, mail carrier and whatnot and needs to be regulated accordingly; particularly, it is not admissible for Provider Y owned by Joe X to erode the readership of Newspaper Z, which is strongly anti-Joe X, through commercial practices.

Provider Y could, for example, offer Newspaper W (a competitor of Z, but strongly pro-Joe X) for free.
Remember how IE (free with Windows 95) vs. Netscape ended?

I have no reason to believe it won’t remain that way.

Uh, there's plenty of people with an immediate economic or political incentive not to leave it that way.
See my previous example, but I can give you a hundred.

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.

Uh, "common sense" is actually very subjective.
That I know of, Ron Paul is aligned with the Tea Party movement, which doesn't scream "common sense" to me.

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.

How so, exactly? Last time I checked Obama was doing something (too little, too late) in the right direction, from regulating Wall Street to having a healthcare system worthy of a first world country to a saner tax policy than its predecessors (Clinton and Bush alike) and finally, at least on paper, the previous administration didn't actively try to worsen the biggest problem the country is facing right now, which is that of lowering its emissions per capita to a first world standard.

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.

Dude, we (as in, Silvio Berlusconi, arguably the worst prime minister Italy as had since Cossiga in 1979) invented the "lesser of two evils" rhethoric.
The guy won three elections by pointing out how untrustworthy his opponents were.

As if it were hard to make a politician look untrustworthy.

 

[GoldenJoe]

When has Apple ever throttled my access to other services to benefit themselves (i.e. QoS or plain firewalling)? They don't do that on the ATV (that I'm aware of).

How many apps have you downloaded without using the App Store? Are any apps allowed to help you manage your files? Provide better telephony services? Run in the background without arbitrary restrictions?

Let's talk about Google. Have you ever used gmail? Ever wonder why gmail doesn't push to iPhones?

The fact that you don't even recognize "throttling" in the first place shows how overblown NN is.

 

[827538]

It's really funny reading the salty comments about net neutrality on this forum, which is dedicated to a company that:

1) is half of a duopoly that completely controls the app market

2) charges developers for access to their customers, taking 30% of all their revenue with no upper limit

3) controls which apps get shown at the top of the list when users perform a search

4) allows large corporations to buy their way to the top of the list

5) can and does remove apps at their own discretion with no right to appeal

Oh, but removing some Obama regulations is so unfair. It's going to kill the internet. Soon Fox will be the only news network around. Clutch your pearls, the ship is going down!

You're not the brightest spark if you don't understand the difference between a utility and buying goods (where there are countless alternatives).

Apple doesn't have a monopoly on phones or computers. The ISPs have HUGE regional monopolies.

Jesus does no one spend even a minute just thinking before they type such asinine BS? Do they teach critical thinking in US schools?
[doublepost=1513370606][/doublepost]

I disagree passionately.
By 2015 the Internet was the hellhole that we know today.
What's more, what was sufficient back then will not be sufficient in the future.

For better or worse, the Internet is now your (international) newsstand, mail carrier and whatnot and needs to be regulated accordingly; particularly, it is not admissible for Provider Y owned by Joe X to erode the readership of Newspaper Z, which is strongly anti-Joe X, through commercial practices.

Provider Y could, for example, offer Newspaper W (a competitor of Z, but strongly pro-Joe X) for free.
Remember how IE (free with Windows 95) vs. Netscape ended?



Uh, there's plenty of people with an immediate economic or political incentive not to leave it that way.
See my previous example, but I can give you a hundred.



Uh, "common sense" is actually very subjective.
That I know of, Ron Paul is aligned with the Tea Party movement, which doesn't scream "common sense" to me.



How so, exactly? Last time I checked Obama was doing something (too little, too late) in the right direction, from regulating Wall Street to having a healthcare system worthy of a first world country to a saner tax policy than its predecessors (Clinton and Bush alike) and finally, at least on paper, the previous administration didn't actively try to worsen the biggest problem the country is facing right now, which is that of lowering its emissions per capita to a first world standard.



Dude, we (as in, Silvio Berlusconi, arguably the worst prime minister Italy as had since Cossiga in 1979) invented the "lesser of two evils" rhethoric.
The guy won three elections by pointing out how untrustworthy his opponents were.

As if it were hard to make a politician look untrustworthy.

Honestly, arguing with Americans on here to try and make them see sense is like arguing with a brick wall.
They are so politically polarized that they can't see past anything less than Obama regulation = bad. It's sad and utterly pathetic. They've swallowed the ISP and party line hook and sinker, they don't want to think rationally about this issue. Instead they just bring up nonsense strawman arguments again and again.

I never vote based on parties, I vote based on policies and track records. But then again, I'm talking with people from a country one party away from an autrocracy.
[doublepost=1513370952][/doublepost]

Oh my!!!!!! The internet was so horrrible before 2015!!!!! Dude get a grip...
[doublepost=1513365057][/doublepost]

Welcome to the realm of leftist hypocracy...
[doublepost=1513365300][/doublepost]Isn't it interesting how all the extreme leftists side with the huge corporations like google, apple, Facebook etc etc with neutrality?
Like Ronald Reagan said " if fascism ever comes to America it will be under the guise of liberalism".

I'm one of the most right wing people I know. I believe in free markets, competition and capitalism.
Repealing net neurtality is exactly what massive, anti-competitive, monopolistic ISPs want. Does that not tell you a dam thing? Seriously. Stop with the nonsense NN is leftwing bla bla bla. Anyone capable of critical thinking understands the importance of it and the absolute deteriation of the internet that will follow having it repealled.
Coming from a country that has a highly competitive ISP market and living with my American fiance I can tell you first hand, the state of ISPs in America is appauling.

Just stop being such a zealot and think, engage, reason.

 

[villicodelirant]

Honestly, arguing with Americans on here to try and make them see sense is like arguing with a brick wall.

Here's a hug.

They're probably all good people, really, but sometimes they do look like football hooligans from two rival teams.

At least over here we have 25 competing factions in each party to keep life interesting.