Net Neutrality Rules Officially End Today as Democrats 'Less Than 50 Votes' From Advancing Petition in the House

[bopajuice]

But if Comcast has built and owns the network, why don't they have the right to charge Netflix more if Netflix' traffic impacts their network in -any- way?

Because the ISP's can now treat companies differently. Net Neutrality was supposed to balance the playing field without giving any favoritism to one particular brand or product. ISP's were providing favorable speeds to their products but not their competitors. Depending on the area, if Comcast built their own network, they did it on public property and most likely made deals with cities and agreed to share lines with others. I wouldn't be surprised if some cities even shared the cost. In return Comcast agreed to share their lines.

There was a whole thing going on a while back where Google was trying to offer gigabyte internet in some areas, but the providers who owned the poles refused, and then wanted to install the lines themselves, and then dragged out the process for so long it made it unreasonable for Google to continue.

That sort of thing is what providers do to monopolize a market. If Comcast comes out with their own streaming service and starts their own production company, without net neutrality they could offer their programming for free and at faster speeds, essentially shutting out Netflix and anyone else for that matter.

 

[rjtyork]

I actually think it might not be a bad idea to try out cannibalism for a few years - after all, if it turns out that we hate it and it sucks, we can always go back.

That escalated quickly.

 

[Mirice99]

But if Comcast has built and owns the network, why don't they have the right to charge Netflix more if Netflix' traffic impacts their network in -any- way?

Facebook and Twitter should be able to censor republican and conservative right? That’s exactly what your arguing, if Comcast doesn’t like a site, regardless of the reason, using its traffic they should be able to charge that website to carry its traffic. Guarantee republicans would be screaming if Time warner throttles right wing websites.

 

[ctucci]

Because the ISP's can now treat companies differently. Net Neutrality was supposed to balance the playing field without giving any favoritism to one particular brand or product. ISP's were providing favorable speeds to their products but not their competitors. Depending on the area, if Comcast built their own network, they did it on public property and most likely made deals with cities and agreed to share lines with others. I wouldn't be surprised if some cities even shared the cost. In return Comcast agreed to share their lines.

There was a whole thing going on a while back where Google was trying to offer gigabyte internet in some areas, but the providers who owned the polls refused, and then wanted to install the lines themselves, and then dragged out the process for so long it made it unreasonable for Google to continue.

That sort of thing is what providers do to monopolize a market. If Comcast comes out with their own streaming service and starts their own production company, without net neutrality they could offer their programming for free and at faster speeds, essentially shutting out Netflix and anyone else for that matter.

I think I understand your basic premiss... I'll have to try to figure out to what degree Comcast has formally agreed to regarding "share their lines", and "cities even shared the cost". I'd add "providers of the poles" seems like a simple ownership issue still, they should have the right to utilize their property as they see fit. Just my opinion though.

Thanks for taking some time to illustrate this -

 

[bopajuice]

I think I understand your basic premiss... I'll have to try to figure out to what degree Comcast has formally agreed to regarding "share their lines", and "cities even shared the cost". I'd add "providers of the poles" seems like a simple ownership issue still, they should have the right to utilize their property as they see fit. Just my opinion though.

Thanks for taking some time to illustrate this -

I could be totally wrong, but I do remember reading about it a while back. You never know what media you can trust these days. Let me know.

 

[ctucci]

Facebook and Twitter should be able to censor republican and conservative right? That’s exactly what your arguing, if Comcast doesn’t like a site, regardless of the reason, using its traffic they should be able to charge that website to carry its traffic. Guarantee republicans would be screaming if Time warner throttles right wing websites.

But if Facebook and Twitter are not public accommodations such as a restaurant or public transportation, and are then private property, why can't they ban Conservatives and/or Liberals?

 

[bopajuice]

Ajit Pai is pure evil.

Or to put it in more Trump friendly terms... There is a special place in hell for people like him.

 

[ctucci]

I could be totally wrong, but I do remembering reading about it a while back. You never know what media you can trust these days. Let me know.

You're right there, no matter if the media source is right or left. I don't trust either without a lot of cross checking. In this, they are thieves of time. <spez: spelling>

 

[Mirice99]

But if Facebook and Twitter are not public accommodations such as a restaurant or public transportation, and are then private property, why can't they ban Conservatives and/or Liberals?

Ask the republicans who want to regulate Facebook and Twitter while also repealing NN.

 

[brendu]

You're right there, no matter if the media source is right or left. I don't trust either without a lot of cross checking. In this, they are thieves of time. <spez: spelling>

I trust most mainstream news (with a few notable exceptions), you just have to understand they are reporting with very obvious bias that influences their reporting. It isn’t impartial and readers should be aware of the bias. It’s really not hard to tell either way how the authors of most articles feel about the issues they’re reporting on.

 

[ctucci]

Ask the republicans who want to regulate Facebook and Twitter while also repealing NN.

Dialogue dies this way. A shame, really.

 

[KPandian1]

I stopped reading at Drumpf.

There I fixed it for you! Not from Oliver - it is his original family name.


President Obama was "Cock"-blocked by the Republicans led by McConnell at every step - this vow was declared by Mitch at the beginning of Obama's first term and reiterated at the begging of his second term, and they fulfilled that promise to their flock all the way thru'! Every attempt made by Obama's Democrats was immediately shut down. In spite of this, the economy grew in leaps and bounds.

It continues to grow, the magical figures he chants from even a year ago, when the unemployment hit the bottom (and continued to dig in lower), did not happen with six months of posturing and tax-cuts to the rich.

President Clinton disappointed everyone of his admirers by lying about his sexual activities - he did not have the balls to tell the special investigator to fork-off. His administration of the nation was excellent, and his economic policies such as reducing deficit actually worked. That wealth was demolished by the Republicans and Bush Jr.

Donald is not "getting things done"; he is ruling by executive orders. Even with all three branches under their control, the Republicans are floundering. Their lasting legacy is the good that they are doing to the richest 0.01% of this country, who promptly take the profit away from circulation.

The biggest slap to the face of American people is the rolling back of banking regulations. Why is this done? Yes, a chunk of crooked politicians from the Democratic side also joined this travesty!

The cost of living has been going up dramatically since 2017, mainly from increasing fuel costs. ISPs and and cellular costs are back on the rise. The Net Neutrality revoking is already making it bad - they did not wait until today to raise their prices, they started doing this in every deceitful manner. Eg. the recent program access fees added to Comcast broadcast channels amounting to $10 plus the old HD fee; add the regional fees and the cable bills have gone up by $16-20, just from last September. You are welcome to research this claim.

The country became racially polarized in November 2008. It is getting worse under this trickster.

I will link the 2015 NN bill again, it is a long read. But, I don't want the buffoon pundits twisting the bill around with catch phrases that mean nothing - we can read it and see how they have explained (almost) every part of the law.

Enjoy - https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0312/FCC-15-24A1.pdf

Cheers.

 

[BaccaBossMC]

Well, looks like no more internet. Goodbye, everyone, it was nice knowing you. This was fun.

 

[Romanesq]

Proponents of Net Neutrality have made a plausible argument with examples that show how this is not true. Can the opponents do the same? The "trust us" argument doesn't hold much water with the current political climate.

The so-called "plausible argument" does not exist in a void. There was no claimed "Net Neutrality" only several years earlier.

Far, far worse, it's Goolag, Theftbook and ****ter who exempt themselves from any regulation as they've hijacked data and censor people like never before.

It's an Internet Bill of Rights that's needed against these major three threats against the freedom of speech that's needed.

They can go stuff their phony Net Neutrality and their censorship policies right up their, uhm collective ****ters.

 

[tooloud10]

Cool. Now let's jack up the taxes on the 1%.

No. A progressive tax system already means that those people are paying *significantly* more than those in the lower brackets. My experience is that the masses in the lower tax brackets have absolutely no understanding of what the people in the higher tax brackets are paying. When you factor in fees/taxes/fines I already pay more than 40% of what I earn to the government every year. If that's not enough, what should the number be?

Now, you may think that's totally fine, but there's no reason for me to work any harder than I already am. Raise my taxes and I raise the rental rates of the properties I own.

High taxes encourage people not to work as hard; we should be doing the opposite.

 

[Populism]

People who think that settlement negotiations don’t start before, and end after, the allotted time period, surprise me.

 

[jazz1]

Internet Service Provider, "Trust Me I won't #%#@*&%#@ you!". So there has been a change?

 

[LizKat]

Lawsuits against this FCC decision will be filed immediately and should be filed immediately. Waiting just entrenches the oligarchs' position.

There's no valid argument for allowing throttling of content not preferred by the internet access provider when a subscriber wants to access that different content. It's anti-competitive, anti-innovative, anti-consumer. Oh wait: I forgot that this administration is all those things...

 

[AgentAnonymous]

The right-wing is outdated and anti-internet.

 

[Naaaaak]

Oh noes!

All of those hard-left tech companies -- Google, YouTube, The Face Book, Twitter -- who built their empires and monopolies in the era before Net Neutrality… will now have to go back to that era that allowed them to become so successful! The outrage!

 

[LizKat]

The right-wing is outdated and anti-internet.

Yeah but it happens to be in charge of this backwards-facing and corrupt government.

On the idea of Comcast throttling Fox News, they are starting to sound more like their owner may have decided to throttle back on some of the Trump love they are accustomed to dishing out. Pretty soon they'll almost sound like CBS, who knows?! Still think ditching net neutrality is a terrible idea.

 

[thadoggfather]

The right-wing is outdated and anti-internet.

Social media is a large part of why both Barack obama and Donald trump were elected president.

It seems liberals are outdated since they don’t have a platform, or a leader, and their candidate lost miserably in the electoral (last I checked this determines presidency, but please, let’s hear about popular vote another time. It
Might elect her) despite trying so hard to rig it having media and hollywood In lock step with her. Shows what a catastrophic failure she is. She can’t even win with all the odds stacked in her Favor.

Please, do carry on. You are helping to ensure a bright fUture for the red wave.

—

Also how feisty are you
Liberal leaning people now? Trump talking with Kim Jung Un. Oh man. Obama was Just warming up Kim for Trump too. Of course, right? Just like the economy. 8 years of stagnancy, but He laid the ground work and rolled out the red carpet so Trump’s job could be easier. That must be it.

...Are you anti world peace now too since he has his hand in that? Are you more worried about speculative doomsday?

(Probably)

 

[LizKat]

Social media is a large part of why both Barack obama and Donald trump were elected president.

It seems liberals are outdated since they don’t have a platform, or a leader, and their candidate lost miserably despite trying so hard to rig it having media and hollywood In lock step with her. Shows what a catastrophic failure she is. She can’t even win with all the odds stacked in her Favor.

But please, do carry on.

Seems to me it's the right that's missing some functional parts, since they have a lock now on all three branches of government and still can't manage to govern even well enough to suit the fractious members of their own party. This is what comes of sitting around saying No for eight years as the opposition and then being hijacked by the CEO of a biz empire that specializes in bankruptcy.

On the thread topic: this FCC decision belongs squarely at the feet of the GOP. Just another thing they own and will have to try to explain while facing the blue wave at some point down the road.

 

[thadoggfather]

Seems to me it's the right that's missing some functional parts, since they have a lock now on all three branches of government and still can't manage to govern even well enough to suit the fractious members of their own party. This is what comes of sitting around saying No for eight years as the opposition and then being hijacked by the CEO of a biz empire that specializes in bankruptcy.

On the thread topic: this FCC decision belongs squarely at the feet of the GOP. Just another thing they own and will have to try to explain while facing the blue wave at some point down the road.

The establishment Republican Party absolutely needs to get it together. They are about as much a mess as Democrats, maybe more maybe less but same league.

Without trump, any other candidate that ran would’ve gotten hosed by Hillary. He had a message that people related to, and seems to be delivering on more than not, against all opposition in the media and from his party/incumbents, and in such a short period of time no less

Sorry but talking to NK, something no other president has been able to pull off, ever, in 18 months is downright incredible. Don’t care if you hate the man and his personality and tweets, that’s a concrete landmark in progress like landingnon the moon. Not to be scoffed at so quickly imo


And it’s why it’s driving his opponents absolutely bonkers. They can’t deal with things that don’t coincide what they believed.

—

What I’m curious of is on what timeline Will people chill out if abolishing net neutrality doesn’t actually have tangible consequences of hell like so many are certain of ? What is the mark?
1 year? Several years? Decades? Eternity?

When does the freak out moment end, if it doesn’t shake out?

It’s obviously premature (to me) to make any concrete determination of its impact. This is about the only
Thing related to the topic of thread I am certain about. Is just that it’s not certain. And that’s not being an apologist I don’t think, just a realist.

I dunno what do ya think

 

[LizKat]

The establishment Republican Party absolutely needs to get it together. They are about as much a mess as Democrats, maybe more maybe less but same league.

Without trump, any other candidate that ran would’ve gotten hosed by Hillary. He had a message that people related to, and seems to be delivering on more than not, against all opposition in the media and from his party/incumbents, and in such a short period of time no less

Sorry but talking to NK, something no other modern president has been able to pull off, in 18 months is downright incredible. Don’t care if you hate the man and his personality and tweets, that’s a concrete landmark in progress like landingnon the moon. Not to be scoffed at so quickly imo


And it’s why it’s driving his opponents absolutely bonkers. They can’t deal with things that don’t coincide what they believed.

—

What I’m curious of is on what timeline Will people chill out if abolishing net neutrality doesn’t actually have tangible consequences of hell? What is the mark?
1 year? Several years? Decades? Eternity.

When does the freak out moment end, if it doesn’t shake out.

It’s obviously premature to make any concrete determination of its impact. This is about the only
Thing related to the topic of thread I am certain about. Is just that it’s not certain. And that’s not being an apologist I don’t think, just a realist.

I dunno what do ya think

I think it helps to consider net neutrality issues outside the box of "entertainment" which is usually what comes to the fore in debates about it. There's an article in the CSM today that's pretty interesting as it focuses on impact on rural public schools (which btw are 53% of all public schools in the states, although serving only about 18% of all students). The article indicates that some schools are trying to establish the equivalent of "net neutrality" directly with their service vendors regardless of whether net neutrality is rolled back or re-established by the FCC. But there's concern over throttling and potential loss of services like digital videoconferencing and other bandwidth consuming activities at the rural schools where often there's only one service provider and no competition likely to surface with deregulation.

Take the "long read" option on the piece, it's still only a few minutes.

https://www.csmonitor.com/EqualEd/2...-tests-mettle-of-small-and-low-income-schools

Price hikes aren’t the only possible outcome of repealing net neutrality, says Mr. Leichty, the CoSN advisor. Providers could create a so-called “two-lane” internet system in which companies that can afford to pay higher fees can receive faster service. The result could be comparably snail-paced loading speeds for some crucial online educational platforms – including videoconferencing and digital testing – that don’t have substantial financial backing.

Those losses of online resources are exactly what Reyer has been working to prevent. He and other school administrators have encouraged schools to include stipulations for a free and open internet environment directly into contract agreements with providers.

“By default [rural school districts] have less negotiating power because they have less choice. But that doesn't mean that they can't ask their vendor to review and sign off on some kind of a net neutrality document,” he says.