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

[tallscot]

I though that experiment already in progress, luckily "dictator" is a "stable genius", so consequences are not that harsh yet.

Tyranny is the government dictating to a company how they can charge for their service.

Liberty is the government staying out of it.

 

[mono1980]

We have tried it out before and it worked fine. It's back to the way it was for decades prior to when "net neutrality" was passed in 2015.

Um, there is a reason that net neutrality was introduced and it was because it was NOT working fine. Bad **** was starting to happen. Do you actually want to give carriers the power to choose winners and losers in the marketplace, because THAT is what's going to happen here.

 

[omihek]

A lot of people (me included) don't have another provider to go to. And WAAAY back in 2015 was back when Comcast was extorting Netflix.

Then that's a monopoly problem, totally different, but then again, not really. Because every time government takes control of something, it becomes a monopoly. I have one power company to choose from, and I have to pay their prices or I don't have power. I have one gas company, one water company, and I have to pay their prices too, no matter what they are, or I don't have gas or water. I don't want to have only one internet company. Some people may only have one option now, but in a free and open market, another company can set up shop at any time. With government control, your internet provider monopoly problem will never go away.

 

[Defthand]

I literally just clarified this several posts above yours. Please read it.

Done. You repeated your example using cell phone services. You didn't explain how ISPs—who don't have comparable competition—are motivated to match or beat ISPs outside their territories.

Historically, ISPs improved their local infrastructures and services for one reason only: to offer more cable tv content which they could charge for. Improvements to Internet service were a side effect. However, the cost of service has never improved.

 

[KPandian1]

Oh, please. "Destroy itself" translation: Put the internet back to the way it was before 2015 (a whole 3 years ago).

It's not the apocalypse, people. Calm down.

The internet was the way it was in 2015 because of the retaliation by the customers, courts and government against the misdeeds of the ISPs. You can easily read this with some of the links above or doing the searching yourself.

The violations were many, not just the FaceTime thing. ACLU and others sued to rein them in. Then the NN bill was passed to prevent future acts by the ISPs to violate and control the net as they please.

Don't look just on the day before the NN bill was passed and the day after - the history is long and the violations many from the early days of the net thru even just before the 2015 bill was passed, and then signed by President Obama.

 

[Jim Lahey]

It’s about time people understood that no one cares about you, your well-being, your health, your family, or your dog. The only thing that makes the world go round is money. Plain and simple.

 

[tallscot]

Obama was a democrat and was in office for 8 years. When were Californians outraged over lack of progress under
His administration? I either missed it, or it didn’t happen

And he had a SUPER MAJORITY for about half a year too. He passed Obamacare (without a public option) – no immigration reform, no gun laws, no drug legalization.

Speaking of California, when are they going to tear down that racist wall on their border?

 

[ISanych]

Tyranny is the government dictating to a company how they can charge for their service.

Liberty is the government staying out of it.

Right, companies must have right to sell employees on organs when it profitable, let's get rid of government and return to golden era of capitalism, where children were free to work 6 days per week 10+ hours per day.

 

[jonblatho]

I actually think it might not be a bad idea to try it out for a few years. It might actually lead to more interesting and useful innovations with less government regulation.

What the hell kind of innovation do you expect relating to putting cable in the dirt?
[doublepost=1528734540][/doublepost]

Put both hands on the stove, USA.

About all we’re good for these days.

 

[DavidLeblond]

Then that's a monopoly problem, totally different, but then again, not really. Because every time government takes control of something, it becomes a monopoly. I have one power company to choose from, and I have to pay their prices or I don't have power. I have one gas company, one water company, and I have to pay their prices too, no matter what they are, or I don't have gas or water. I don't want to have only one internet company. Some people may only have one option now, but in a free and open market, another company can set up shop at any time. With government control, your internet provider monopoly problem will never go away.

Internet is not treated as a utility, so all of what you said doesn't apply.

 

[CPTmom2wp]

The Constitution is a work in progress. It has been amended many times
As we invent norms for ourselves, we have to decide if those norms deserve protection from people who might otherwise want to control them.

Such as Google, Twitter, YouTube, FaceBook who want to control us by throttling free speech.......i.e., limiting speech to only politically correct speech that they deem appropriate?

 

[jlseattle]

Washington state governor Jay Inslee signed a law in March that effectively reinstated the federal net neutrality rules for its residents, and other state governors in Montana and New York are said to have used executive orders "to force net neutrality." A total of 29 state legislatures had introduced bills to ensure net neutrality as of May, but many failed or are still pending today as the national repeal takes place.

Glad I live in Washington State.

 

[thadoggfather]

Done. You repeated your example using cell phone services. You didn't explain how ISPs—who don't have comparable competition—are motivated to match or beat ISPs outside their territories.

Historically, ISPs improved their local infrastructures and services for one reason only: to offer more cable tv content which they could charge for. Improvements to Internet service were a side effect. However, the cost of service has never improved.

Your freaking out is predicated on a hypothesis. Not a reality.

I already conceded many markets don’t have viable ISP competition. And extended it to say how competition is both good for the consumer in some instances but an open invitation to trample all over the customer in lockstep in other instances like cellphone carriers

Not much more more to say except agree to disagree

I feel for people that actively look for reasons to be in and validate panic mode. Must be a rough way of life. But It’s certainly not my way

 

[jonblatho]

For every company that will abuse its position there will be another that will take the opposite stance. And in the end the consumer will pick the models they want to see succeed.

You’re implying most consumers have a choice. They don’t.

Let’s look at my house for example. Living a bit out of city limits, our options are DSL, LTE, and satellite. The latter two are available through many different companies.

CenturyLink, the sole DSL provider, is cheapest (still exorbitantly expensive) but hilariously slow. They’ve had us stuck at about 560 kB/s down for over a decade now. We could get faster speeds through LTE and satellite, but given how we use our connection, the latency and/or reliability tradeoffs are too much to bear in exchange for the higher asking price of the other options.

So we’re basically stuck until a cable company gets out here or CenturyLink offers faster speeds here. We know how to make this connection work in 2018, and we’ll keep making it work until then.

 

[Mirice99]

Literally none of that has been debunked and none of that is conspiracy theory. And none are talking points. Just facts.

Let’s examine it in depth since I threw a lot of tricky concepts out there

Trump was a liberal. Look at his wikipedia

Well if Wikipedia say it then it must be true. Never mind the fact he has been screeching the racist birther argument against Obama for 6 or 7 years. Oh and never mind how he called for the death penalty for innocent black men even after they were found not guilty. Not to mention when he was busted for refusing to rent to minorities, but yeah Wikipedia said he is a liberal...

Taxes in California are high. Sanctuary cities and open borders are the norm. You live there you shouldn’t have to look it up but look it up if it helps

Open borders, spoken like a true Trump supporter who refreshes Breitbart 10 times a day. Plenty of states have high taxes, and you might want to check out average incomes per state befire recycling Fox News crying about taxes....

Obama was a democrat and was in office for 8 years. When were Californians outraged over lack of progress under
His administration? I either missed it, or it didn’t happen

Progress, you mean protecting the environment, protecting wildlife, The Affordable care Act, killing Bin Laden, Dodd-Frank...

Schumer pelosi brown and schiff have done nothing for you but screech and collect their $$

Yeah because Mitch McConnell, Gowdy, Issa, and Rubio do wonders for you, I will give credit to Republican leaders though for their ability to convince gullible suckers that they are fighting for them while pissing on their leg and stealing their wallet.

 

[tallscot]

let's get rid of government.

You are confused. Someone else was arguing that the dictator is the one who eliminated government regulation and I corrected them by stating dictators are the ones who want the government to control you.

Apple can't harvest their employees organs.
Apple can't hire 10-year olds to make phones.
Apple can charge whatever they want for their phones.
Apple can decide which apps go on its own App Store.

The hyperbolic argument that because I want liberty versus tyranny, so I must want murder and child labor to be legal, is childish.

 

[Fozziebear71]

Everyone going crazy with worry about the horrors of an internet without net neutrality seem to have forgotten how the internet was WAAAYY back in 2015 (only 3 years ago people) before net neutrality was put in place.

People keep citing the AT&T throttling of Skype, but that's the beauty of an open market. If your provider is doing something you don't like, you switch to another provider to teach them a lesson.

I don't claim to know every detail of what is written in the net neutrality documents, but the differences I've seen between pre-2015 internet vs post-2015 internet are so small as to be nonexistent. Someone, anyone, tell me why it is such a BIG deal either way?

Politics. That's all it is. Nothing more. Nothing less. Most of the people on both sides of the issue know almost nothing about how it will affect them. They just spew the view that is fed to them from the political social media sites they follow. Some of the comments in this thread prove it.

 

[DaveN]

To add salt to the wound, the Trump FCC inserted a section banning states from enacting their own net neutrality rules. You know, states rights unless the state has a different idea than what Republicans want.

 

[jhwalker]

The flow of information should be unencumbered by the desire to monetize access to content.

I pay for a certain level of Internet service (300 Mbps), and there should not be blocks, throttling, or tariffs preventing such service.

I foresee providers allow access to Faux Noise websites for free, while PBS requires a service / subscription fee (or vice versa). Likewise, cable Internet providers throttling access to competitors while allowing unfettered access to their own content.

Not good.

 

[CPTmom2wp]

Internet is not treated as a utility, so all of what you said doesn't apply.

Not yet, but there has been a lot of discussion from the pro NN folks about making it one.

But your point is a good one. Who among us has had our electricity, gas, water go down in price or has experienced improved service with one provider controlled by the government? My bills have increased dramatically and I would expect the same with NN and the internet.

 

[pat500000]

I actually think it might not be a bad idea to try it out for a few years. It might actually lead to more interesting and useful innovations with less government regulation. If it turns out that we hate it and it sucks, I bet we’d be able to reinstate net neutrality laws and get back to the way things are. Not to mention a lot of people seem to have forgotten that these regulations are still fairly new as it is. Nothing wrong with switching back and forth a few times to see what’s working better and what we like better.

If it doesn’t work out, the situation won’t improve. Gov’t won’t do anything about it to revert back to “normal” ways.

 

[tallscot]

You’re implying most consumers have a choice. They don’t.

Let’s look at my house for example. Living a bit out of city limits, our options are DSL, LTE, and satellite. The latter two are available through many different companies.

CenturyLink, the sole DSL provider, is cheapest (still exorbitantly expensive) but hilariously slow. They’ve had us stuck at about 560 kB/s down for over a decade now. We could get faster speeds through LTE and satellite, but given how we use our connection, the latency and/or reliability tradeoffs are too much to bear in exchange for the higher asking price of the other options.

So we’re basically stuck until a cable company gets out here or CenturyLink offers faster speeds here. We know how to make this connection work in 2018, and we’ll keep making it work until then.

The biggest barrier to entry into any market in the United States is government regulation, and most Americans don't realize that the ones who are lobbying for more regulation are the big corporations who can afford to pay for the compliance. The little start-up doesn't have a slew of lawyers to deal with compliance, the Goliaths do.

Small example – in a town Louisiana, you can't open up a store that sells flowers unless you get a license from the government. How do you get a license? You have to take a test and show that you can make floral arrangements. Who judges that test? Existing florists who you will compete with.

So why can't you just open up a flower store and if you suck at making arrangements, the market will judge you and stop buying from you and you'll go out of business.

The barrier to entry into the internet service provider market is government. When Bill Clinton deregulated telcom, the market exploded with choice and the cost to make a long distance call went to zero (unlimited included with your monthly bill).

 

[thadoggfather]

Well if Wikipedia say it then it must be true. .

How is this an ambiguous thing?

I don't even like wikipedia just used that as a lazy reference since people that don't want to do research often want lazy redemption

it is objective fact Trump was a Manhattan liberal and switched sides. Not ambiguous.

To deny that as a baseline... so, um, uh, Where do we go from here?

2+2 totally isn’t 4

 

[tallscot]

Oh and never mind how he called for the death penalty for innocent black men even after they were found not guilty

That's funny. He's pardoning and commuting the sentences of Black men as president right now.
[doublepost=1528736350][/doublepost]

But your point is a good one. Who among us has had our electricity, gas, water go down in price or has experienced improved service with one provider controlled by the government? My bills have increased dramatically and I would expect the same with NN and the internet.

In California, I had one choice for electricity – PG&E. PG&E charges you more for electricity the more you use it. In typical liberal fashion, I am punished for not behaving the way liberals want me to behave. It's "destroying the planet" if I use too much electricity in my house. So they have 5 tiers and they charge up to 50 cents per kwh. 50 cents!!!

I moved to Texas and I have several electricity providers to choose from, including 100% renewable if I want. I currently pay 7.7 cents per kwh FLAT RATE. I can do month-to-month or I can pay less and do a 1-2 year contract if I choose. Sounds like telecom after Clinton deregulated it, right?

 

[KPandian1]

Internet is not treated as a utility, so all of what you said doesn't apply.

Then, we should not allow them to be monopolies. The states can act independent from the FCC and ensure about 5-6 or more ISPs are available for every market.