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.
Net Neutrality Repeal Made Official With Entry Into Federal Register
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If one bank folds, that's true. Spread the wealth in different banks, proven investments, probably not so much.
Last edited:
You do realize that didn't happen, right? The govt didn't hand the ISPs $200 billion cash (or whatever the figure is people keep quoting from several books written by bruce kushnick).
Kushnick has a pretty obvious agenda, and started all this "ISPs stole our money!" nonsense. The figures he came up with are calculated based off of ISP profits and small tax incentives over the course of decades during the Internet boom. Unfortunately he misrepresents it as "the taxpayers gave them everything!!!"
I'm all for net neutrality - but I wish people would stop spreading that complete and utter fabrication. I wish they would become truly educated on the subject; rather than repeating false narratives created by an author.
TL;DR - There was absolutely no agreement that resulted in the govt handing hundreds of billions of dollars in cash over to ISPs for fiber optic. It didn't happen. It was made up in a book.
Last edited:
Is this bet only valid for citizens in the United States or can Canadian's take you up on that offer?
Judging from the CRTC's and cellular provider's moves here in Canada since 2001(Rogers first launching it's GPRS network, then buying out Innukshuk Inc. which included Fido - coincidentally had the FIRST cellular home modem in N.America btw).
Since 2001
- no drop in MB/GB Data until 2017 from the Big 3 (Rogers, Telus - formerly Clearnet, and Bell Mobility)
- many smaller secondary players emerged after Fido was purchased:
MNVO = Virgin Mobile a sub-company partnership with Bell Mobility
Public Mobile -horrible service focused on PayGO (prepaid accts only)
Wind Mobile (owned wholly outside of Canada somehow slipped through CRTC's regulations). Offered large buckets of Data allotment at significantly cheap prices - yet coverage in Toronto at first (NOT GTA) and only offered EDGE data speeds- IF you could get coverage on limited bands). This has changed in the last few months:along with sold network, name change to Freedom Mobile, and LTE speeds and officially supporting iOS yet again IF YOU CAN get coverage on LTE - I've yet to maintain LTE in any core location in Toronto for 5mths!
Mobilcity ... another pathetic network that Rogers was initially restricted by CRTC to purchase when it was pretty much bankrupt; then finally Rogers was allowed to purchase. No upgrades done ... this will die soon enough as it duplicates Fido services and pricing and marketing.
The biggest offering for 7yrs by ANY BIG 3 was 6GB/Mth BUT limited 3mth offer and at $40/mth Extra on normal voice bills. Plans quickly grandfathered.
December ... the BIG 3 reacted in collusion - I'm shocked this still cannot be obvious to the CRTC (yet their in BIG 3's coffers) to match Freedom Mobile's 10GB/Mth bonus with unlimited nationwide daytime Minutes, Ultd. Weekends & Evenings for $65/mth ... lasted 28days ... issues with getting these accounts caused servers to crash (billing servers for all) and many accounts limited for 3mths from Transfer of Responsibility (selling your plan)!
I'd love to believe Canadians would also benefit yet the reality is it'll be VERY sparse and limited 30day offer for years..Only Corporations will benefit..
PS:Keyboard is screwed up on MBA.
It's so transparent that ISPs lobbied to remove this restriction on them and paid off a lot of crooked politicians. Meanwhile ISPs are acting like they hate the idea of being able to charge for specific internet services. This will only push American companies and businesses behind the rest of the world, essentially adding a US tax on all internet businesses. I don't get how anyone inside the US can see this as a Win? It baffles my mind!
Capitalism on it's own works no more than communism or socialism. Only a combination of checks and balances maintain democracy. This is being sold as some kind of capitalism, USA first but it's the very opposite to that for US companies it represents a tax on them.
Just hosting a top website is a massive burden that already limits the use of web data. Add this on top and you'll see the US become a graveyard of failed web businesses in a few years.
Capitalism on it's own works no more than communism or socialism. Only a combination of checks and balances maintain democracy. This is being sold as some kind of capitalism, USA first but it's the very opposite to that for US companies it represents a tax on them.
Just hosting a top website is a massive burden that already limits the use of web data. Add this on top and you'll see the US become a graveyard of failed web businesses in a few years.
Yep, you can take me up on the bet, though my prediction, and thus the bet, applies to the US market.
I’ll bet one month of a mid tier internet plan. Which is a pretty good bet for the NN alarmists, who predict rates will skyrocket. If they’re right, I owe them, what, $10,000 that they predict an average ISP will charge. If I’m right, they’ll owe me less than $100.
The bet is serious, but stipulations apply. Since my premise is that NN is not good for consumers, if any significant NN regulations or legislation is put into place during the bet timeframe, the bet is void. I fully expect politicians and bureaucrats will do their best to screw up a good thing.
[doublepost=1519387757][/doublepost]
Where is your skepticism when it comes to those who lobbied for NN regulation, especially Netflix and Google? Since Netflix and YouTube account for a vast amount of bandwidth usage, of course they want to force the cost onto the ISPs and not themselves*.
Netflix and Google have run very effective lobbying and PR campaigns that somehow have convinced people that they’re looking out for the little guy. Google now spends more on lobbying than any other firm, and believe me, their efforts are just as motivated by self interest as the precious top spender, Comcast.
It’s good to be skeptical of lobbying. Just apply such skeptical consistently.
* Of course, the actual costs are payed by customers. But isn’t it more fair that the costs be paid by internet users who do use Netflix than those who do not?
[doublepost=1519388100][/doublepost]
When capitalism can be blamed for the starvation of tens of millions of people, then I’d say you’ve got a point. Until then, capitalism comes out way ahead.
Last edited:
I was being sarcastic. You people are worked up for and over nothing.
Any time someone on the right side of the political spectrum makes a decision, be it net "neutrality" or taxes or whatever, it is LITERALLY THE END OF THE WORLD AND THE RETURN OF LITERALLY HITLER. AHHHH!!!
The teeth gnashing and whining has become a joke and makes me LOL most of the time at the ridiculousness.
I don't live pay check to pay check buddy.
If you want to pay more taxes - hey, go for it! Ill enjoy my tax cut by investing it into my retirement plan. Thanks Trump! And **** you Trump for your terrible opinion on the internet!
And yet now that government is stepping out, prices will go up, and what you get for that money will decrease.
If I'm on an NBC affiliated carrier, and I want to watch stuff from a non NBC content provider, I SHOULD be able to do that with no added cost, or slowdown of the content. THAT is what net neutrality means. Imagine a road where one day you have to pay extra because your car is blue. A road where 20 inch rim cars have to drive 30mph. Where cars going to a football game get to go 70, and people going to the symphony have to drive 25. None of that makes sense, and neither does killing net neutrality.
It's not about 'getting things for free' as the libertarians always cluck. It's about getting what you PAY FOR, a 'carrier' to access 'data' from multiple sources. Killing net neutrality as ALL ABOUT carrier profit. On Twitter, there are various front groups crying about the coming of a 'freer internet'. The only thing 'free' is the carriers ability to screw their customers. Look at cell phones. We all get screwed no matter who we go with. It's a choice of how badly screwed you want to be. It's coming to ISP's now. We've got about a month left before the threads of net neutrality are gone. Enjoy it while it lasts.
Yes, because like it or not, you're a member of society, and you benefit from that membership in myriad ways. It may be argued that while you of course have a responsibility to your family and your future, you also need to weigh it against your place in the grander scheme of being a human being in a society of your peers. It isn't a lot to ask to have people give for the sake of others. It comes around in positive ways that benefit everyone. This kind of lock down will primarily, if not only, benefit those whose primary goal is their self interest. Your version of "I'd rather have my money go into my own pocket" writ large. You cannot counter injustice with more injustice. Many, many great thinkers have known this for a long time. The issue is it requires some measure of self-sacrifice, and that sort of thing is hard to come by when attitudes are all about self-preservation.
The government would rather give my money to illegal aliens and people who abuse the system. Maybe if these services were not so corrupt, I would be okay with it. But half of the time, these politicians funnel money from the services or there's people straight up abusing the system. I trust my money going to me more then it going to big government with politicians flying around on their private jets while talking about global warming and pretending they care about the working class and poor.
Any system as large-scale as a democracy, will have services that will *always* be abused in some ways, by some people. I'd argue that the Ajit Pais of the world are abusing the internet as a service from the top down, except they're doing it in plain sight. The thing about 'abusers of the system' at the bottom end that you're taking issue with is that they are very much the exception, and not the rule. The thinking that you're taking a dollar out of your pocket and giving it to someone who then laughs at you and runs away is incorrect. That kind of thinking is tossing the baby out with the bathwater. One of the premises of democracy is that it should do the most good for the most people, and continually strive to refine that state. It'll never be perfect, but it's a damned sight better than the opposite, which is what we're seeing here with the NN stuff. This is not one person unscrupulously taking a fraction of a pool of money that people were kind enough to donate or required to contribute through taxes to the detriment of those in need. This is a handful of people taking the lion's share of control (and therefore profit) from all people in the system to the detriment of everyone but themselves. The only way to correct course is for everyone to say no to ALL of the people who are unjustly gaming the system. The good news is, the Ajit Pais are far easier to see than the little turds. All you need to do is take off the rhetoric glasses.
The reason why they keep repealing and trying to change everything so quickly is because they know their days are numbered. Pray for the supreme court justices to remain healthy because that's going to be the bigger, long-term problem if anything happens to them in the next three years.
Net neutrality is the most pro-capitalism thing I can think of. Without it, the incentives will favor that a select few corps or the government (or more likely some collusion between them) dictate how the Internet works. Check out China with QQ. They and other restricted countries just copy what the USA creates because they can't evolve Internet-based tech on their own.
Umm, no. Forcing companies to charge a specific amount, and blocking them from partnering with other companies is absolutely anti-capitalism. Dumb restrictions like that prevent businesses from pouring resources into innovation, because there's no way they'd be able to profit from it anyway.
You realize the net neutrality rules that were active in the US did neither of those things.. right?
Last edited:
I bet someone that there was no way that trump could ever be elected president.
I now do not bet when large groups of idiots have any effect on the outcome. But just look at ComCast's history for how bad it very well could get. They were one of the first ISP's to selectively block content, get thumped for doing it, deny it, and get spanked for lying.
Yes I do, he literally doesn't know anything about net neutrality. If I meant it figuratively I'd of said figuratively.
[doublepost=1519605968][/doublepost]
Uh, yes there are there are enormous differences. I know this is a reddit thread but have a look here, its all fully sourced with links to the bills, and who voted for what. Both sides are not the same:
https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/75ob7s/fccs_claim_that_one_isp_counts_as_competition/do7rcdc/
[doublepost=1519606014][/doublepost]
Wrong you are! The bill exists, the ISPs are repeatedly given money, and you're flat out lying. Seriously grow up. You can read the damn bill.
That is not what your post I quoted stated. It says that he literally told everyone he knows nothing about Net Neutrality.
So, you are saying that he goes around telling everyone that he knows nothing about Net Neutrality, which I am pretty sure he is not. At least, he hasn't said that to me yet.
Now, if his statements shows his ignorance of the Net Neutrality subject, you could say "you figuratively told everyone you know nothing about Net Neutrality ".
Basically, you're using it wrong....
OF course they vote differently, that is not what I meant. What I meant, and should have said, is that there is no differences between the parties in terms of protecting and standing up for individual citizens. Not one bit of difference.
Neither stand for freedom of speech. Neither stand for transparency in government. Neither stand for government or powerful being held accountable to the law. Neither stand for the Constitution. Neither stands for individual privacy. Neither stand for truth.
What they both stand for is lying and posturing in order get or buy votes. They are the political elite and they will do anything to stay in power. That is what they have in common and it drives everything. To say that because one party lies about one subject, but the other parties only lies about a different subject and therefore they are different is just insanity.
If the salesman comes to the door and offers you a new car for a good price even though its a complete lie, are going to believe him because you want a new car. If another salesman comes to the door and tells you the car is not really new, and its not as cheap as you want, you are going to NOT believe him, because you just don't want to even though they are telling the truth.
This is politics today. People don't bother to discount politicians that are complete liars and whom you would never invite into your home. Somehow as long as they say what people what to hear, true or not, that is enough for complete support. Its sad, but nothing new. This has been politics for 100s of years. To bad they don't teach history in school any more.
Fine. Post a link to the bill you are referencing that shows "All ISPs got 200+ billion in cold hard cash to run fiber optic" and prove me wrong. It is all public record - if it exists you can surely find it.
Net neutrality has nothing to do with forcing companies to charge a certain amount. They charge whatever as long as it's the same for all packets. And they're definitely making huge profits and improving the infrastructure rapidly, at least judging by average up/down speeds and reliability.
Last year, I worked in a research lab for cellular tech, and there was an alarming amount of effort in other projects I came into contact with being put into restricting access or inspecting packets to charge different amounts for different sites, plus other rules. Look at what Facebook did in Indonesia and attempted in India.
Last edited:
Although the burden of proof is on you for your claim, not on me, here you go, this is one of several pieces of legislation giving ISPs money:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996#Stated_objective
[doublepost=1519695059][/doublepost]
Sorry but I disagree. He LITERALLY knows nothing about Net Neutrality.