FCC Sets End Date for Net Neutrality on June 11 as Democrats Lead Vote to Block Repeal

[palebluedot]

I am glad people understand this. All I see is "THE WORLD WILL END", which is typical of the left.

How is a market free and open when two or three national monopolies divy up local control into one company that is the only access point for a person to the Internet? Do you honestly believe some free wheeling tycoon is going to come in and spend the capital to first lobby state and local governments to get kick backs and right of way and second lay the infrastructure necessary to "compete". Because that is the current state of the "free and open" market that exists at the largess of state enshrined statutory market hegemony.

 

[827538]

This is the explanation of NN I keep seeing everywhere, and it's the worst one. Users are already divided into fast and slow lanes in that they pay for bandwidth! You use more, you pay more, net neutrality or not. Now people think it just has something to do with charging more money for service, which is actually the opposite of what will happen.

The short version is this: Handle all packets equally. Nobody knows how bad in the long term it is to lose it. And short term, they'll spin it in a way that makes consumers happy.
[doublepost=1525974313][/doublepost]
Don't call people ignorant. What you're describing has nothing to do with net neutrality. The poster GFLPraxis a couple of replies up was accurate.
"the cost of delivering the data is essentially the same regardless of how much is used" - No, data takes processing and electricity, and ISPs only build to support the peak aggregate, not the aggregate peak, so long term they even have to build more if people use more. With NN, ISPs can and do charge more if you use more data.

Of course it has nothing to do with NN Mr Heckles was clearly confusing NN with usage. The two are separate things.

The cost of sending data is negligible. The cost of running a switch is pretty much the same regardless of data usage.

That’s the whole point, people are using more data so more bandwidth and capacity is required. That’s not the users problem, that’s what they have paid for.

 

[Zachari]

How is a market free and open when two or three monopolies control ever access point to the Internet? Do you honestly believe some free wheeling tycoon is going to come in and spend the capital to first lobby state and local governments to get kick backs and right of way and second lay the infrastructure necessary to "compete". Because that is the current state of the "free and open" market that exists at the largess of state enshrine statutory hegemony. Fake libertarian spotted.

Did I ever say that there wasn't a monopoly? No... I didn't. In fact here is what I said in a earlier post about competion and how NN hindered it:

Because of Net Neutrality, broadband infrastructure development and market competition was hindered. Smaller ISP's actually had a more difficult time breaking into the market, so those rural areas with only one "big" ISP (which is a big talking point for the pro-NN folk) had deep enough pockets to deal with the burdensome regulations.

 

[gnipgnop]

Ajit Pai is corrupt. Anyone who goes along with his plans in Congress is just participating in the corruption.

 

[BuffaloTF]

Everything here is different with wireless networks. Even with wired, as I explained above, the size of the package is not irrelevant.

The size of the package being delivered is totally irrelevant in the context it was being used. It was already paid for by the stage of delivery that was being pointed to.

 

[fairuz]

That’s the whole point, people are using more data so more bandwidth and capacity is required. That’s not the users problem, that’s what they have paid for.

It is the users' problem. Many plans have soft or hard data caps and charges per byte used, especially (but not exclusively) wireless. This does not go against NN.

 

[lunarworks]

Conservatives: "I should be able to say anything I want on the internet, and internet companies should not restrict me in any way whatsoever. Anything else is censorship."

Also Conservatives: "Internet companies should be allowed to restrict data however they see fit."

 

[CarlJ]

Lol. Hardly any of those did any real damage. Also, one companies bad decision is another company's opportunity to capitalize on... AKA Free Market/Competition. I'm glad you googled a list tho without any true background.

You started out with:

What was wrong with the internet before NN was put in place? Answer: Nothing​

You were then shown a detailed and properly sourced list of numerous examples of ISPs and cell carrier companies starting to do bad things on the Internet before Net Neutrality was put into place (things that were good for their business and bad for their customers and the Internet in general), thus showing your "Answer: Nothing" to be clearly wrong, and you respond by minimizing in ridiculous ways (like what, do you only consider it "real damage" if there's blood spilled or if it affected you personally?). Note that by saying, "Hardly any of those did any real damage" you are agreeing that some of the events listed did do real damage. And you patronize the person who answered for not spending years researching it all on their own. I suppose then you have done years of research on your own to show that Net Neutrality isn't necessary? Please cite the results of your extensive first-hand research. Or admit that last sentence was just another attempt to brush off actual data points without having to go to the effort to actually, you know, refute them with evidence. What's next, "it doesn't count, you didn't say 'Simon Says' first?"

 

[fairuz]

Conservatives: "I should be able to say anything I want on the internet, and internet companies should not restrict me in any way whatsoever. Anything else is censorship."

Also Conservatives: "Internet companies should be allowed to restrict data however they see fit."

To be fair, I think they don't understand the issues surrounding NN. I want everyone educated on this so they can better decide. And it only takes a brief, neutral explanation of what the heck it is, not a condescending essay. There are valid arguments against it, but I think most people would be for it if they even knew what it was.

 

[techwhiz]

Keep the control freaks off the internet. It was fine pre-2015 without the Federal Government trying to stick their nose in the net and it will be fine now.

People and companies resolved things themselves without authoritarian fascist type policies requiring it.

Actually, before Net Neutrality was enacted, the groundwork for the image you replied to had started.
2005 – North Carolina ISP Madison River Communications blocked VoIP service Vonage.

2005 – Comcast blocked or severely delayed traffic using the BitTorrent file-sharing protocol. (The company even had the guts to deny this for months until evidence was presented by the Associated Press.)

2007 – AT&T censored Pearl Jam because lead singer criticized President Bush.

2007 to 2009 – AT&T forced Apple to block Skype because it didn’t like the competition. At the time, the carrier had exclusive rights to sell the iPhone and even then the net neutrality advocates were pushing the government to protect online consumers, over 5 years before these rules were actually passed.

2009 – Google Voice app faced similar issues from ISPs, including AT&T on iPhone.

2010 – Windstream Communications, a DSL provider, started hijacking search results made using Google toolbar. It consistently redirected users to Windstream’s own search engine and results.

2011 – MetroPCS, one of the top-five wireless carriers at the time, announced plans to block streaming services over its 4G network from everyone except YouTube.

2011 to 2013 – AT&T, T-Mobile and Verizon blocked Google Wallet in favor of Isis, a mobile payment system in which all three had shares. Verizon even asked Google to not include its payment app in its Nexus devices.

2012 – AT&T blocked FaceTime; again because the company didn’t like the competition.

2012 – Verizon started blocking people from using tethering apps on their phones that enabled consumers to avoid the company’s $20 tethering fee.

2014 – AT&T announced a new “sponsored data” scheme, offering content creators a way to buy their way around the data caps that AT&T imposes on its subscribers.

2014 – Netflix started paying Verizon and Comcast to “improve streaming service for consumers.”

2014 – T-Mobile was accused of using data caps to manipulate online competition.

Say we don't need it again?

 

[KdParker]

And you think the government is the answer to that? They’re 1000 times worse. You can’t pick a worse entity for keeping something “fair” than the government.

Who do you think regulates banking, water safety, streets, automobiles, planes, gas (nice not to have random explosions), etc.etc..?

Do you really think the free market is what keeps companies from protecting their bottom line at any cost? There is a reason for child labor laws.
[doublepost=1525978067][/doublepost]

Conservatives: "I should be able to say anything I want on the internet, and internet companies should not restrict me in any way whatsoever. Anything else is censorship."

Also Conservatives: "Internet companies should be allowed to restrict data however they see fit."

They will see when it is their conservative viewpoints that are censored and redefined.

But by then it will be too late.

 

[CarlJ]

Keep the control freaks off the internet. It was fine pre-2015 without the Federal Government trying to stick their nose in the net and it will be fine now.

People and companies resolved things themselves without authoritarian fascist type policies requiring it.

So, in your view, is it an authoritarian fascist policy that says, "you can't murder people"? I mean, people should be able to resolve that themselves, without the government getting involved, right? If you would support the government saying, "we will punish you if you murder someone", even though pretty much everyone is already in favor of not getting murdered, then what is so wrong with having a law that says, "if you're providing networking services, you're not allowed to block or throttle some traffic just because you don't agree with it or think you might get more money by holding that traffic for ransom"? Would you also be in favor of repealing the laws against murder, and just letting people work it out on their own?

There's a well-sourced list in this thread of numerous instances of large companies going out of their way to hurt customers and their competition, pre-2015. Things were not fine. We were starting to see the signs of them getting worse. Net Neutrality was a good attempt to fix that.

 

[neutralguy]

Man! So much bickering on this. I wish we could fight with healthcare insurance company or doctors with the same enthusiasm. All hospitals should charge same for the same diagnostics. All the insurance companies should charge same insurance price to all people. Or for that matter auto insurance companies too.

 

[brentsg]

Did I ever say that there wasn't a monopoly? No... I didn't. In fact here is what I said in a earlier post about competion and how NN hindered it:

Because of Net Neutrality, broadband infrastructure development and market competition was hindered. Smaller ISP's actually had a more difficult time breaking into the market, so those rural areas with only one "big" ISP (which is a big talking point for the pro-NN folk) had deep enough pockets to deal with the burdensome regulations.

It's far more than "rural" affected, and the monopoly was in play well before any net neutrality rules. I live in a populous area of more than a million people in the metro area and there's 1 legitimate ISP. If I pass up my current 200+Mb/s plan with the cable company, my second best option is 18Mb/s down with less than 1 Mb/s up (DSL advertised as fiber).

Man! So much bickering on this. I wish we could fight with healthcare insurance company or doctors with the same enthusiasm. All hospitals should charge same for the same diagnostics. All the insurance companies should charge same insurance price to all people. Or for that matter auto insurance companies too.

I'm with you there. Last December my doctor told me he was doing a flu test.. did a swab in my sinus and I got a $1400+ bill 2 months later. I eventually won the dispute, but it took many hours of effort. Going thru more stuff right now and I've just had to waive the white flag.

 

[CarlJ]

Man! So much bickering on this. I wish we could fight with healthcare insurance company or doctors with the same enthusiasm. All hospitals should charge same for the same diagnostics. All the insurance companies should charge same insurance price to all people.

With Single Payer insurance we would have precisely that - uniform pricing, more affordable healthcare, and coverage for more of the population. Just like most every other civilized/developed country in the world. But, instead, we have insurance companies lobbying congress to get systems that keep them flush in profits, when congress ought to be doing, you know, what's best for the people of the United States. (And, BTW, it's not all so clear cut - it could reasonably be argued that the same diagnostic could cost different prices in different areas, if the cost of doing business varied widely between areas - starting with property values for where the hospitals are located - but, yeah, we'd be better off with a healthcare system that wasn't so overwhelmingly driven by profit motives.)

 

[chrono1081]

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=744968109042560&id=246976735508369&ref=bookmarks

Or

I'm not even going to bother to watch your nonsensical video. The caption alone tells me these guys don't know their ass from a hole in the ground.

Your mind can't be changed, you're remaining willfully ignorant. You're wrong, that isn't opinion its straight fact, you've been told repeatedly why you're wrong and what Net Neutrality actually means and you're burying your head in the sand. You're not worth my time.

 

[x-evil-x]

Short answer is yes. Without NN ISPs can block, slow, or manipulate any traffic that goes across their network. If they don't want their customers using VPNs they can setup their network to block them. Just like China or Russia. Although it will likely be on the "slow it down" side. Blocking gets people mad, but if they quietly (without oversight) slow or degrade certain kinds of traffic to a crawl they may just be able to convince you pay more for "fast lane" bundles. Including a "fast lane" for your VPN.

How would they know if you where using a vpn unless they can tell your server location? Being one state over (Arizona- California). I feel like they already slow down certain streams with kodi but that could be what it’s coming from.

 

[magicschoolbus]

Does anyone else think this is the Cable networks trying to protect their dying subscribers to cord cutters and that's why this was put in place?

 

[fairuz]

Does anyone else think this is the Cable networks trying to protect their dying subscribers to cord cutters and that's why this was put in place?

Yes.

 

[Mr. Heckles]

I'm not even going to bother to watch your nonsensical video. The caption alone tells me these guys don't know their ass from a hole in the ground.

Your mind can't be changed, you're remaining willfully ignorant. You're wrong, that isn't opinion its straight fact, you've been told repeatedly why you're wrong and what Net Neutrality actually means and you're burying your head in the sand. You're not worth my time.

Wow. So I have an opinion like you do and I’m wrong? Ok.

 

[seek3r]

Wow. So I have an opinion like you do and I’m wrong? Ok.

No, you're just wrong, period

 

[Mr. Heckles]

No, you're just wrong, period

Ya know I see both sides. I can at least admit that. My issue I Want government involvement as little as possible.

Maybe I should have said that before, but to straight up attack someone is wrong.

God forbid someone have a different opinion around here.

 

[AsherN]

Does anyone else think this is the Cable networks trying to protect their dying subscribers to cord cutters and that's why this was put in place?

Absolutely.

Once upon a time, the networks would produce content an put it on the air. Then cable companies came in and charged you to carry those networks, and some that you did not have OTA access to in your home. When that internet thing became popular, the cable companies were a natural, they have the physical plant. But at that point, they were still just a companies delivering content.

Then the mergers started. Now, your content creator and deliverers are the same. So they will try to do anything to keep their product to have an edge. Sometimes it's innocuous, sometimes it's not.

For example, when HD TV was making inroads, the local company also owned some TV channels. The cable lineup had the SD feed in the same spot they always were, and then the HD feed in some much higher channel number. BUT, if your cable box was connected to a HDTV, and you dialed the SD channel for one of the cable company owned channel, they would automatically substitute the HD feed. Not so for any other channel.

 

[CrickettGrrrl]

The level of ignorance on this thread is astounding.

People bleating that the government should keep their hands off the internet and things were fine before NN.

People need to understand that before Title 2 (aka NN) there was the weaker Title 1 which protected them to an extent. Even then ISP's were routinely abusing their position. The internet is about to be in the complete control of giant, billion dollar ISP's and some people seem to be fine with that. I'm pretty shocked, as a non-American I understand there's a huge level of anti-government sentiment but jesus christ - you'd rather support Comcast and Verizon? What is wrong with you?

You have some of the worst service at some of the highest prices in the Western World. People need to understand regulating a UTILITY is necessary as there's only one option in many areas. Regulation is what got you cheap, universal electricity supplies.

Honestly, stop thinking like a fanatic and start trying to understand what is at play here. Because a lot of people are looking pretty stupid on this thread.

My brother recently moved to Europe to get away from the fascist craziness going on here in the US, he & his wife planned for it for 2 years. Now when we talk to him he won't shut up about his fast internet & how cheap it is compared to the States, and also how great & how inexpensive his iPhone service is, too.

Honestly thought we were going to have to shut him about how great his healthcare is now, but no, it's nonstop about cell & internet. Granted, he is an engineer, but still...

It completely sucks that there's barely any competition for internet service here, not enough to raise speeds & lower prices to what the rest of the world receives. Asia, Europe, even parts of Africa have much better & faster internet service than here and most Americans are completely unaware of how bad it is here in comparison. I suppose they assume that yes-it-sucks-but-therefore-it-is-worse-everywhere-else.

Ha! No.

 

[Mr. Heckles]

There are lot of people screaming about how internet was fine before this.. Human beings were also just going along fine without established hospitals , medicines etc. The need for regulation is so that these companies don't get greedy and charge whatever they want to the consumer. And if you want to stick you head in the sand and say nothing is wrong that is your choice but without it this is what could happen
View attachment 761301

Just like you're saying there is chances nothing will change, there are also high chances companies will run amok and implement these. And this is not a made up image. This is from a country where the internet is controlled by these greedy companies

See, it’s this crap that is miss leading. Yes, they have plans like this, but they also have all inclusive plans as well... Cheaper then here in the USA. I posted a video (of course people won’t watch it) explaining this very photo.