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

[Mackinjosh]

"FCC chairman Ajit Pai said in a press conference on Friday that today's repeal will lead to "better, faster, cheaper internet access for consumers, and more competition."

I have no reason to not believe him...other than the fact that it's been proven that he's been taking payoffs to kill Net Neutrality. And many Republicans support him, which is par for the course because there's nothing Republicans love more than voting against their own best interests.

 

[KPandian1]

https://fee.org/articles/net-neutrality-is-about-government-control-of-the-internet/

The privacy and net neutrality rules passed in the FCC in 2015 were part of the larger effort under the Obama Administration to regulate the Internet ...

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

Read this, understand it properly and make up your own mind instead of swallowing the interpretation and confabulation of sites like these. I read the drivel in this site to see how far they go to twist the facts with catch phrases that had no basis, fear mongering, etc.!

These sites are the shepherds of this nation of sheep today.

 

[nwcs]

The problem there is that the model you're speaking of assumes a desire to compete. This is not always or even often the case in rural areas. Just because we live in the boondocks does not mean we should have to put up with a provider throttling an alternative video service to suit its own bottom line, knowing that no one's going to roll out an alternative net service any time soon.

I don’t disagree but that was happening before the rules were in place and will happen after. Unfortunately it is always a pay to play situation. Of course, right now it’s just a theoretical throttling more than anything. Still, in more rural areas there can be a case made for bringing competitive access out there plus infrastructure comparable to more urbanized areas. I feel for ya, though.
[doublepost=1528740371][/doublepost]

Ya good luck with consumer choice when there's already a complete monopoly in our country with some cities only having one or two ISP choices.

As long as you have two there can be competition. Personally, I wouldn’t have allowed all the mergers such as Comcast/NBC, Charter/Spectrum, etc. but then again I wasn’t the one making the decisions there. But I would imagine, based on the past, that what is unified tends to get broken up again.

 

[AZ63]

Sure about that?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired.com/2010/12/fcc-order/amp/

The article stated 2015 so…
I know the author waited until the second to the last paragraph to include it so maybe you didn't read it or you should be sending your link to the author.

 

[nwcs]

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.

Of course, it makes some assumptions. And as I mentioned to the other person, I feel for you. But that really doesn’t change anything with regard to net neutrality before it was made a regulation or after it was or today. Many people get the short end of the stick but it doesn’t have to do with NN but rather a complex interplay of regulation, government interference (either stifling competition or bribery), and simple economics. Doesn’t matter what the political flag says: people are people and there will always be those who game the system or try to profit from it no matter which level of bureaucracy they represent.

 

[coolfactor]

A lot of cross-Canada internet traffic gets routed through US pipes. Hopefully this doesn't affect us indirectly.

 

[jonblatho]

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).

Is that why my town got a new cable ISP, our first attempt at a cable ISP in years, in 2015 under the Obama administration and NN rules?

 

[coolfactor]

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.

Yes, i've got DSL in my [old] apartment building. I do have the option of a [faster] cable connection, but DSL offers a more stable connection (which I need for my work). Even though I'm paying for 15Mbps, I get less than 6Mbps most of the time. I switch to my mobile's LTE connection whenever I need a faster connection and it's 10x faster!

 

[HowieIsaacks]

Well, I'm still downloading at almost 1Gb/s and my online services aren't running any different. So far the apocalypse has not started. This is not the catastrophe those in the offended class think it is.

 

[wigby]

There were instances of blocking under "net neutrality" too. There's also any other cell phone carrier you could haven taken your business to that didn't block Skype. Also the FCC made AT&T stop blocking it. Didn't need neutrality rules to fix the problem.

We can cherry pick examples on both sides but the majority of the U.S. customers already has little to no choices in the area of cable TV. That will be the first battleground and I have zero confidence that the FCC will intervene fairly.
[doublepost=1528741760][/doublepost]

Well, I'm still downloading at almost 1Gb/s and my online services aren't running any different. So far the apocalypse has not started. This is not the catastrophe those in the offended class think it is.

This is not going to be like a Y2K bug. As companies gradually instate new policies and plans, we will all see the squeeze. The real question is if competition will be allowed to flourish enough to offset those new policies.

 

[tallscot]

Is that why my town got a new cable ISP, our first attempt at a cable ISP in years, in 2015 under the Obama administration and NN rules?

Capital spending by ISPs actually went down 2014-2016, for the first time.

Is it your belief that more companies will enter a marketplace where the government has dictated that you can't charge Netflix more because of its burden on their private network? The opposite is true.

 

[grad]

Well, I'm still downloading at almost 1Gb/s and my online services aren't running any different. So far the apocalypse has not started. This is not the catastrophe those in the offended class think it is.

Judging by your failed try at sarcasm in your comment, it seems that you have already lost but you just don't know it yet.

 

[tallscot]

I switch to my mobile's LTE connection whenever I need a faster connection and it's 10x faster!

It's easier to put up a cell tower than it is to bury wire under all the streets. 5G is 10 Gbps. Everyone will have more choice and at some point, all access will be wireless, in my humble opinion.

 

[lunarworks]

But they're still choosing winners and losers, just in a different way. What percentage of bandwidth should Netflix be able to consume before the NN supporters acknowledge that maybe they should be paying more for it?

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

 

[Lord Hamsa]

Look, this is a complex and convoluted issue with no easy answers and a lot of passion on both sides. Even looking at the companies in favor of and against Net Neutrality repeal, it was a pretty mixed bag across the board.

My personal opinion is that, by and large, Net Neutrality rules were a solution in search of a problem. Most of the abuses it was supposed to address were already things the FCC had some measure of control over. Maybe some of those rules could have used strengthening, but the rules that took effect three years ago were overkill. Personal opinion. Yours may differ. Power to you.

While I see worry about "slow lanes" vs. "fast lanes", I see the issue differently. As in akin to the introduction of toll express lanes on certain highways - the regular highway remains as it always was, but those with the needs/means to pay the extra fee have that option available to them. Under Net Neutrality, that toll road can't be built, and the regular highway doesn't get any of its congestion relieved.

Now, you may not agree with this particular analogy, but at least take a moment to consider that there are multiple perspectives out there, and that in the absence of empirical evidence (and the plural of "anecdote" is not "data"), there's no knowing which interpretation - if any - is correct.

 

[techwhiz]

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.

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.

Yeah, back to like it was.......

 

[EightyTwenty]

Oh well. The country clearly needs to destroy itself to learn the value of what it had.
Put both hands on the stove, USA.

Liberals are so hilarious. You guys are so dramatic and emotional. It’s funny. Everyone you disagree with is Adolf Hitler and every policy you don’t understand is the end of the country. LOL.

 

[shareef777]

You mean like when you could have switched to another carrier that didn't do that? And also you mean when the FCC made AT&T stop doing that, before any net neutrality regulations?

Oh, could I have left my 2 year contract because of that? Didn't think so.
[doublepost=1528743014][/doublepost]

Liberals are so hilarious. You guys are so dramatic and emotional. It’s funny. Everyone you disagree with is Adolf Hitler and every policy you don’t understand is the end of the country. LOL.

You mean like the conservative snowflakes that cry for freedom, but have a change of heart when someone takes a knee?

 

[shareef777]

And that continued until Obama stopped it in 2015 with NN?

The point is NN would of stopped that to begin with!

 

[EightyTwenty]

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.

Yeah, back to like it was.......

And yet every single one of those issues was resolved without “net neutrality” regulations. Funny how that works.

It’s also funny how you don’t cite the thousands of examples of tech monopolies like Google, Facebook, Apple, Amazon and Twittet blocking, throttling, and banning since “net neutrality” was introduced into law.

And you do realize FCC still has oversight authority over ISPs, right?

 

[LizKat]

Of course, it makes some assumptions. And as I mentioned to the other person, I feel for you. But that really doesn’t change anything with regard to net neutrality before it was made a regulation or after it was or today. Many people get the short end of the stick but it doesn’t have to do with NN but rather a complex interplay of regulation, government interference (either stifling competition or bribery), and simple economics. Doesn’t matter what the political flag says: people are people and there will always be those who game the system or try to profit from it no matter which level of bureaucracy they represent.

You might be leaving out a few of the "interferences" that are not only possible but that have occurred in the past, unless one wants to consider that they were included under heading of "bribery." Some inhibition of competition may have seemed governmental in the past but in fact occurred at behest of private sector oligarchs. One that comes to mind is large cable companies that persuaded municipalities to pass local ordinances that precluded any group (nonprofit or otherwise) from "rolling their own" broadband capabilities.

In theory those days are behind us as the FCC supposedly does support community-owned broadband initiatives. However I'd say it pays to keep an eye on this iteration of the FCC since it's clear they have set corporate interests above those of the consumer -- no matter how appealing their pitch may sound about competitive opportunities opening up as an effect of deregulation.

 

[KPandian1]

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.

Yeah, back to like it was.......

Yeah, the sheep are not impressed by the facts that you, and so many others have repeatedly, laid out.

 

[tallscot]

Oh, could I have left my 2 year contract because of that? Didn't think so.

From the Spectrum web site: "Stuck in a contract? We'll buy it out up to $500"

You see, that's a company innovating in the free marketplace.

 

[jonblatho]

Capital spending by ISPs actually went down 2014-2016, for the first time.

Correlation doesn’t imply causation. Fact of the matter is, for many areas, we’ve kind of hit a ceiling on upgrades that can be made with current technology. A lack of new stuff to spend money on in broadband infrastructure usually means spending will, remarkably, go down. They’re not gonna sit there and replace fiber with fiber for no reason.

Indeed, it looks like that’s the case. While spending did go down (a little bit) overall, you neglected to explain the reasoning for it, and you neglected to mention that some ISPs—notably including Comcast, the nation’s largest ISP—actually increased their capital spending. And judging by Comcast’s public comments on whether Title II regulation impacted them, well, it didn’t impact them.

Next time, come back with more than Ajit’s talking points.

 

[ThunderSkunk]

Liberals are so hilarious. You guys are so dramatic and emotional. It’s funny. Everyone you disagree with is Adolf Hitler and every policy you don’t understand is the end of the country. LOL.

I wish the inverse of that was also funny.