FCC Has Voted to Repeal Net Neutrality Rules

[belvdr]

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.

I recognize throttling. It’s in my post you quoted.

None of what you mentioned is even in the scope of net neutrality in regards to Apple. If I install a telephony app, it likely doesn’t go through Apple.

 

[827538]

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.

Thanks!

I swear if Obama tried to privitise all healthcare and remove any government funding you'd have Republicans building an NHS in no time.

Honestly why the hell are they so obsessed with their camp and then hating the other? Policies not parties people.
I'm still waiting on a correct pro NN repeal argument. Every time I come across someone in this thread saying it's so bad it's just factually incorrect, or plain lies. I don't get it. They're actually on the side of Comcast, one of the worst companies in the US, it's bizarre to me.

 

[sbailey4]

If you like your plan and all that non-sense.....
Funny how everything the Democrats 'promise' will happen never does.

But then again, I guess you thought the internet didn't work from inception-2015

Exactly what I was thinking. How did this all work ok BEFORE 2015?

Yes, everything Obama = bad. Everything Trump = good. Stop the political crap and think. Innovation will definitely be hindered by this rule.

Say I want to start up a new website to compete with AT&T-owned DirecTV NOW. AT&T will make my service slower, thus making DirecTV NOW seem much better. This was not allowed previously - all content had to be treated the same.

AT&T later says I'll have to pay them $10,000 a day to make my content the same priority. Really? For a startup? This type of thing will definitely hinder innovation.

I can also imagine politics getting involved. How would you like if Verizon, say, decided to make Foxnews.com and all conservative sites work at 300 baud, while all other liberal sites could go full speed? This effectively silences a party's voice. That's allowed with this new rule, which wasn't allowed before.

Net neutrality is freedom. This is definitely not.

So answer me this. Previous to what, 2015 when this was passed? So prior to 2015 all content was not treated the same? When exactly was any content slowed down and by who? Just curious. Interested to know how this is all of a sudden going to change how things have been since the beginning. This regulation has only been in effect from 2015-2017 so what happened outside of those 2 years?

 

[CartoonCat]

In the mobile space I don't think it will make much difference. There is enough competition there. In the home space it may be detrimental though. Not enough competition. I only have two real choices. AT&T or Spectrum. We'll see how things shake out.

 

[EightyTwenty]

I think it is somewhat justified. Does anyone not remembers the throttling wars some years back? The favoritism of some sites over others? That alone was worth regulation.

Please. That was a minor issue that was resolved without Obama's Title 2 regulations. The FCC has just returned us to the Clinton framework that worked perfectly from 1996-2015.

The FTC has overview authority over the Internet, same as it did from 1996-2015. They can intervene if there are anti-competitive practices implemented by ISPs.

The level of hysteria and outright lying by "net neutrality" supporters over the past few weeks has been terrifying to witness. Thank goodness we don't live in a direct democracy. The angry mob is almost always ill-informed or just plain dead wrong.

 

[ovo6]

How this law even passed, all these people that voted for this are worse than trump like good thing about this is nobody gonna use the internet and all these companies gonna go broke

 

[harriska2]

Exactly what I was thinking. How did this all work ok BEFORE 2015?

So answer me this. Previous to what, 2015 when this was passed? So prior to 2015 all content was not treated the same? When exactly was any content slowed down and by who? Just curious. Interested to know how this is all of a sudden going to change how things have been since the beginning. This regulation has only been in effect from 2015-2017 so what happened outside of those 2 years?

Comcast had to stop throttling Netflix.

 

[mudslag]

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.

You mean the same stock market that was already in an uptrend before Trump came into play? Or the unemployment that was already heading down before Trump? You mean those numbers? Trump's role in those is no where near responsible. Trump has cut regulations and has proposed the tax reform, that's Trump's role in the markets. None of the regulation cuts have resulted in the 1.5 million in jobs. But hey, you're welcome to try again.

 

[samcraig]

Comcast had to stop throttling Netflix.

They also had to stop dragging their behinds on authenticating HBO Go on Roku and PS4 devices

 

[EightyTwenty]

Honestly why the hell are they so obsessed with their camp and then hating the other? Policies not parties people.
I'm still waiting on a correct pro NN repeal argument. Every time I come across someone in this thread saying it's so bad it's just factually incorrect, or plain lies. I don't get it. They're actually on the side of Comcast, one of the worst companies in the US, it's bizarre to me.

It's amusing watching you call out partisanship and then immediately pivot to mindless, nasty partisan talking points.

You want an argument for repealing Title 2 regulation of the Internet? Very simple:

1) It was a "solution" to a "problem" that doesn't exist. It's an unnecessary intrusion by government into Internet regulation. The FTC already has regulatory power over ISPs if they act in an anti-competitive fashion that hurts consumers. Applying Title 2 to the Internet is like using a nuclear bomb to kill a fruit fly in your kitchen.

2) Investment in Internet infrastructure is down considerably since Title 2 was applied. That's fine if you think the Internet is done growing. I believe we aren't anywhere near the full capability of the Internet and much more investment in infrastructure is required and will benefit us all.

http://www.insidesources.com/invest...roviders-since-net-neutrality-economist-says/

3) The Internet was MORE free and MORE open prior to Title 2 being applied in 2015. 1996-2015 was the golden age of Internet freedom and innovation. This rollback returns us to that era.

4) The giant tech monopolies are all in favor of Title 2 regs. Google, Facebook, Apple, Netflix, etc. There is a reason these entrenched monopolies want heavy government regulation. The same reason all monopolies love government. They want to maintain their power and dominance. There isn't a company more evil than Google, in my opinion. If they are for it, I'm against it.

5) The tech giants DON'T practice what they preach. Google and Facebook and Twitter want a "free and open Internet". BULLSH*T! Those companies would make Kim Jung Un proud with their political censorship. They are bullsh*t artists of the highest order. You want your "free and open Internet"? Then you should have spoken up when conservatives were being systematically removed, censored, banned, throttled, and demonetized by the tech giants over the past 2 years.

Fin.

 

[samcraig]

It's amusing watching you call out partisanship and then immediately pivot to mindless, nasty partisan talking points.

You want an argument for repealing Title 2 regulation of the Internet? Very simple:

1) It was a "solution" to a "problem" that doesn't exist. It's an unnecessary intrusion by government into Internet regulation. The FTC already has regulatory power over ISPs if they act in an anti-competitive fashion that hurts consumers. Applying Title 2 to the Internet is like using a nuclear bomb to kill a fruit fly in your kitchen.

2) Investment in Internet infrastructure is down considerably since Title 2 was applied. That's fine if you think the Internet is done growing. I believe we aren't anywhere near the full capability of the Internet and much more investment in infrastructure is required and will benefit us all.

http://www.insidesources.com/invest...roviders-since-net-neutrality-economist-says/

3) The Internet was MORE free and MORE open prior to Title 2 was applied. 1996-2015 was the golden age of Internet freedom and innovation. This rtollback returns us to that era.

4) The giant tech monopolies are all in favor of Title 2 regs. Google, Facebook, Apple, Netflix, etc. There is a reason these entrenched monopolies was heavy regulation. There isn't a company more evil than Google, in my opinion. If they are for it, I'm against it.

5) The tech giants DON'T practice what they preach. Google and Facebook and Twitter want a "free and open Internet". BULLSH*T! Those companies would make Kim Jung Un proud with their political censorship. They are bullsh*t artists of the highest order. You want your "free and open Internet"? Then you should have spoken up when conservatives were being systematically removed, censored, banned, throttled, and demonetized by the tech giants over the past 2 years.

Fin.

There isn't a company more evil than Google? LOL.. Ok.

 

[spacemnspiff]

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

That's because many of my fellow Americans forget to leave their Bibles at home and think that Bible is the guiding reference in governance.

 

[EightyTwenty]

None of the regulation cuts have resulted in the 1.5 million in jobs. But hey, you're welcome to try again.

You got some evidence to support that claim, my man?

Weren't you the same people who claimed the economy would tank if Trump got elected? Fun watching you guys backtrack now that we're a year in to his presidency and the economy is booming and ISIS is obliterated.

 

[827538]

That's because many of my fellow Americans forget to leave their Bibles at home and think that Bible is the guiding reference in governance.

My other half and her family are very religious, I'm an atheist. Sitting there listening to them sometimes was pretty odd.

 

[harriska2]

You got some evidence to support that claim, my man?

Weren't you the same people who claimed the economy would tank if Trump got elected? Fun watching you guys backtrack now that we're a year in to his presidency and the economy is booming and ISIS is obliterated.

You do realize that it takes years to see the full effects of policy change from a sitting president, right? It’s not like instantaneous. Give it 1-2 more years and let’s talk again.

 

[mudslag]

You got some evidence to support that claim, my man?

You mean evidence of the market trend going up over the last few yrs or are you referring to the drop in employment numbers over the last few years? As for evidence that regulation cuts haven't created 1.5 millions, that would require evidence to the initial claim which wasn't mine. You'ed need to ask the person who made said claim for that evidence. I can't provide a negative.

Weren't you the same people who claimed the economy would tank if Trump got elected? Fun watching you guys backtrack now that we're a year in to his presidency and the economy is booming and ISIS is obliterated.

No I wasn't, you won't find a single post of mine suggesting otherwise. In fact as a trader who makes his living off the markets, I want this rally to continue. It's good for my spread trades.

Now see you just made a claim yourself, can you provide evidence that Trump had anything to do with ISIS?

 

[LizKat]

when conservatives were being systematically removed, censored, banned, throttled, and demonetized by the tech giants over the past 2 years.

Yet here they are, the so-called conservatives, alive and well, and still funding operations like Breitbart and a host of think tanks with even-handed names that sound like they're at least as liberal as the day is long. You been drinkin' their water? Check the label to see if it's funded by the Mercer Family Foundation et al heavy hitters. They're not really conservatives so much as extreme libertarians but what's in a name... Trump figured they'd tag along with his so-called populist core supporters and he got that right. Now the Mercers may wonder what they got sucked into sometimes when they hear Donnie talking, but hey as long as Bannon's still up there spouting disestablishmentarian bullfeathers, I guess they're good with it... as long as that tax "reform" package makes it to The Don's desk.

As for the net neutrality thing: I've already said I think the decision was a bad one and I also figure rural areas will be amongst the first to see the spinoff of it, since there's no competition to bring anything to the boondocks, and that includes not only fiberoptic cable but content as well. We have one or two choices in most rural areas. So the one, or the two, will say what they want to do, then do it and we'll see if we can pay the increase on the freight. And frankly if enough of us can't, those one or two ISPs, they don't care and they'll drop service to the area entirely and suggest we subscribe to a satellite provider...

The main game around here for decades has been one big company after another acquiring what was always and still is a POTS copper line provider, repainting the trucks with a new logo, taking on a little debt and laying out some nice bonds, spinning up some new DSL subscribers with some promo or other, then flipping the thing to the next well heeled corporate sucker (which means to rinse and repeat) and then proceeding to take its gains elsewhere to invest in more profitable segments of the information highway. So far looks like Frontier got stuck holding the hot potato here and in plenty other rural areas across the country... but there's still probably time to flip it again before the markets tank under the weight of the GOP's latest trickle-down debacle.

I keep half-expecting Frontier and say Windstream to say well let's play copper-line roulette together and maybe something good will happen and we'll get paid to wave a magic wand and run broadband networks up in them thar hills. Well nothing good will happen along that line in the boondocks unless the US government truly regards broadband as essential to all Americans, which it is not going to do under a GOP administration. We sitting up here in case industry ever realizes we have great locations and educated workforces thanks to state university systems. But... we're short on fiberoptics. America's loss... shrug... at least we still have nice scenery.

 

[bmac4]

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.

What are you saying? You want companies to do whatever they want like paid prioritization?

 

[827538]

It's amusing watching you call out partisanship and then immediately pivot to mindless, nasty partisan talking points.

You want an argument for repealing Title 2 regulation of the Internet? Very simple:

1) It was a "solution" to a "problem" that doesn't exist. It's an unnecessary intrusion by government into Internet regulation. The FTC already has regulatory power over ISPs if they act in an anti-competitive fashion that hurts consumers. Applying Title 2 to the Internet is like using a nuclear bomb to kill a fruit fly in your kitchen.

2) Investment in Internet infrastructure is down considerably since Title 2 was applied. That's fine if you think the Internet is done growing. I believe we aren't anywhere near the full capability of the Internet and much more investment in infrastructure is required and will benefit us all.

http://www.insidesources.com/invest...roviders-since-net-neutrality-economist-says/

3) The Internet was MORE free and MORE open prior to Title 2 being applied in 2015. 1996-2015 was the golden age of Internet freedom and innovation. This rollback returns us to that era.

4) The giant tech monopolies are all in favor of Title 2 regs. Google, Facebook, Apple, Netflix, etc. There is a reason these entrenched monopolies want heavy government regulation. The same reason all monopolies love government. They want to maintain their power and dominance. There isn't a company more evil than Google, in my opinion. If they are for it, I'm against it.

5) The tech giants DON'T practice what they preach. Google and Facebook and Twitter want a "free and open Internet". BULLSH*T! Those companies would make Kim Jung Un proud with their political censorship. They are bullsh*t artists of the highest order. You want your "free and open Internet"? Then you should have spoken up when conservatives were being systematically removed, censored, banned, throttled, and demonetized by the tech giants over the past 2 years.

Fin.

Good god, another one of these.

1) A solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Oh really? What about Comcast extorting money from Netflix while under Title 1 classification? It's the tip of the iceberg. The problem definitely does exist and NN helps fix it. It's funny, in the rest of the world were NN is generally the norm we all have no issues. Regulation is what provides us with high speed, low cost internet. I can't believe you advocate removing regulation from massive regional monopoolies and expecting improvements. The opposite will happen, costs go up, service goes down.

2) That is not an unbiassed web source. A quick google search reveals its credibility.
Here's a better source;
https://arstechnica.com/information...-investment-according-to-the-isps-themselves/

Straight from the horses (ISP) mouth... 'In December 2015, AT&T’s CEO told investors that the company would “deploy more fiber” in 2016 than it did in 2015 and that Title II would not impede its future business plans.'

What utter nonsense. The reason there is a massive lack of investment from your beloved ISPs is due to running regional monopolies. They were also given a huge - $400bn - some of money by the US tax payer to develop a national fibre network which they never did.
That document proves spending increased under Title 2.

3) The internet was absolutely not more free. Under Title 1 classification countless abuses by ISPs were recorded. Again, do you understand what Net Neutrality is? Because it is what gives us a free, innovative and competitive internet. The god dam ex Chairman of the FCC, Tom Wheeler absolutely tore into Ajit Pai and explained the damage this will cause. What planet are you living on if you think unregulating ISPs is a smart idea?

4) The giant tech monopolies are all in favor of Title 2 regs. Google, Facebook, Apple, Netflix, etc. You don't say, I don't think I'd want my business being extorted either.

Just like how massive and hated companies like Comcast (multiple time winner of most hated company in North America award), Verizon, AT&T, TWC are all in favour of removing Net Neutrality. The same companies that operate huge abusive monopolies and screw over their customers at every turn? Did you even think before writing?

5) I am a god dam conservative - but unlike you, I'm not a zealot. And you just showed me exactly why you post the way you do. This is some sort of autistc screeching to 'stick to them liberals'. I did actually speak up on multiple forums about the abuse - but how does that have anything to do with Net Neutrality? Please, enlighten me. Those are private platforms, NOT utility providers. You're conflating two completely different things in a lazy attempt at attacking Net Neutrality which really has NO downsides - believe me, I've searched and searched for counter points and I'm yet to find any.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-the-reaction-among-republicans-was-striking/

Even Republican voters overwhelmingly support keeping net neutrality. My god, are you some sort of Comcast rep? Or just trolling?

 

[JoJoCal19]

Nothing bad happened from 1996 to 2015 like you are all whining about so why would it happened now?

You and so many others forget that there WAS a NN law in place prior to 2015. VZW sued successfully to remove them. Hence when the classification of internet as public utility, AKA the 2015 NN law, was put into place. So yes, now that a prior VZW lawyer was given the position by lobbying essentially, and stripped it out, VZW can move forward with whatever devious plans they were wanting to do...

 

[bmac4]

I don’t understand the argument here. This should not be a right and left issue. This should be a no brainer, this is going to be terrible. What argument can you make that this will be good? Who wants anything to do with paid prioritization? I know I don’t.

 

[EightyTwenty]

You do realize that it takes years to see the full effects of policy change from a sitting president, right? It’s not like instantaneous. Give it 1-2 more years and let’s talk again.

But you guys claimed the economy would tank if he got elected. The exact opposite happened.

I'm glad to see the backtracking. We'll talk next year, where I am sure you will give Trump full credit for 4% GDP growth.
[doublepost=1513378646][/doublepost]

You mean evidence of the market trend going up over the last few yrs or are you referring to the drop in employment numbers over the last few years?

Nope. I'm going to need some evidence for his claim that regulation cuts haven't added jobs.

Now see you just made a claim yourself, can you provide evidence that Trump had anything to do with ISIS?

"Trump, Mattis turn military loose on ISIS, leaving terror caliphate in tatters"

“The leadership team that is in place right now has certainly enabled us to succeed,” Brig. Gen. Andrew Croft, the ranking U.S. Air Force officer in Iraq, told Fox News. “I couldn’t ask for a better leadership team to work for, to enable the military to do what it does best.”

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/1...isis-leaving-terror-caliphate-in-tatters.html

 

[bopajuice]

Please. That was a minor issue that was resolved without Obama's Title 2 regulations. The FCC has just returned us to the Clinton framework that worked perfectly from 1996-2015.

The FTC has overview authority over the Internet, same as it did from 1996-2015. They can intervene if there are anti-competitive practices implemented by ISPs.

The level of hysteria and outright lying by "net neutrality" supporters over the past few weeks has been terrifying to witness. Thank goodness we don't live in a direct democracy. The angry mob is almost always ill-informed or just plain dead wrong.

What group did those million plus comment bots on the FCC website belong to? Who exactly was lying? Why didn't the FCC release records about those bots as requested? What are they trying to hide? Why was public input limited and or hacked?

"ON A SINGLE day in late May, hundreds of thousands of public comments poured into the Federal Communications Commission regarding its plans to roll back net neutrality protections. A week and a half later, on June 3, hundreds of thousands more followed. The spikes weren't the voices of pro-net neutrality Americans, worried what will happen if the FCC allows internet service providers to block and throttle content whenever it so chooses. In fact, they weren’t really voices at all."

I read that ISP's will not have to disclose the full price of internet. Can block whatever sites they want to.

"After Thursday's rules take effect—internet service providers will decide whether it'll cost you".

I don't think paranoia has anything to do with it. I was not happy with my internet service then or now. They implemented data caps even with net neutrality in place. Imagine what they can do now without it. It seems to me when you give corporations the keys to the castle, it does not turn out well for the rest of us.

If you have only one or if you are lucky two choices for internet service, you will be affected. Several states are already saying they will file lawsuits. I think there is more to it than partisan politics and whiney liberals. These are states and their Attorney Generals that do not like this idea. Are they all liberal states and left wing politicians? Why are they suing?

Come talk to me this time next year. Let's see how it's going then. If I am wrong I'll stand corrected.

 

[EightyTwenty]

What group did those million plus comment bots on the FCC website belong to? Who exactly was lying? Why didn't the FCC release records about those bots as requested? What are they trying to hide? Why was public input limited and or hacked?

"ON A SINGLE day in late May, hundreds of thousands of public comments poured into the Federal Communications Commission regarding its plans to roll back net neutrality protections. A week and a half later, on June 3, hundreds of thousands more followed. The spikes weren't the voices of pro-net neutrality Americans, worried what will happen if the FCC allows internet service providers to block and throttle content whenever it so chooses. In fact, they weren’t really voices at all."

You realize those Soros bots were posting in SUPPORT of net neutrality, right?

 

[bopajuice]

I don’t understand the argument here. This should not be a right and left issue. This should be a no brainer, this is going to be terrible. What argument can you make that this will be good? Who wants anything to do with paid prioritization? I know I don’t.

Partisan politics transcends all. Even pedophilia, and sexual harassment.

The issue is about the party. Only support the party.... No need to educate yourself or stick to morals or values. Just repeat what you hear from your partisan news source of choice or your ignorant neighbor of family member. Let's just get in line and do what we are told. After all, Trump is a "businessman". He knows what's best for me.
[doublepost=1513379222][/doublepost]

You realize those Soros bots were posting in SUPPORT of net neutrality, right?

Thats why I was asking. I am not trying to prove a partisan point, I am asking questions to understand the truth.

The issue is also:

"On Wednesday, the New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman's office announced that its six-month investigation into net neutrality comments sent to the FCC found as many as two million comments had used real people's names and personal info without their permission, including some belonging to deceased persons. That number is expected to rise, and so far, at least 5,000 confirmed victims have filed complaints under New York law."

Also

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...elp-investigate-net-neutrality-comment-fraud/

You do realize people sometimes fight fire with fire. If the bots corrupted the commenting process, then it diminishes the legitimacy of those comments.

"All warfare is based on deception" - Sun Tzu...