FCC Announces Plan To 'Gut Net Neutrality'

[ravewulf]

And who is regulating the government to protect we the people from abuse by them? NOBODY. What corporation forces everyone to buy their product like the government forces us to buy health care?

You've got it backwards. The corporations are the ones who bought and corrupted the government. Forcing everyone to buy private health insurance was a gigantic gift to the health insurance corporations. If Obama had any balls at all he would've at least given us a public option. The best option would be to expand Medicare and do away with private health insurance altogether. Healthcare should be publicly funded as part of our fundamental rights. The short of it is we need to get money out of politics and pass something like FDR's Second Bill of Rights.

All those politicians you complain about? Bought off by lobbyists to do the bidding of corporations instead of listen to voters (this applies to BOTH Republicans AND Democrats). All the policies that get passed in our government as it exists now reflect which side has more money instead of which policies have more support with voters. We're a democracy in name only. Instead we've become a corporatocracy/oligarchy.

 

[10tacle]

You've got it backwards. The corporations are the ones who bought and corrupted the government. Forcing everyone to buy private health insurance was a gigantic gift to the health insurance corporations. If Obama had any balls at all he would've at least given us a public option.

You still do not understand that big government can be completely autonomous to control over something. We already HAVE public options in health insurance just like we did prior to Obamacare (just like most Americans have at least two choices in their ISPs). You can go to no less than three major health insurance providers like BC/BS right now and sign up for your own plan outside of the ACA. Many states now however are pulling out of the ACA in some states because it's not profitable there under ACA (gee, who never saw that coming). Even some private practice doctors and small hospitals are refusing to accept ACA patients because they are not getting reimbursed fast enough by the government to pay their own bills.

The best option would be to expand Medicare and do away with private health insurance altogether. Healthcare should be publicly funded as part of our fundamental rights. The short of it is we need to get money out of politics and pass something like FDR's Second Bill of Rights.

Yes because Medicare has been such an enormous success. Doctors are refusing to serve Medicare patients now because they too are not getting reimbursed fast enough. Why? Because funding was cut for Medicare to pay for Obamacare...to the tune of $718 billion. Sounds familiar. By 2028 it will be out of reserves.

And we Americans always HAD health care insurance. In fact, when Obamacare was rammed through CONgress in the middle of the night without it being read, 86% of Americans already had health insurance coverage. But it sounded like more of a sob story to say 21 million were without coverage than 14%. The LAST thing we need is a single payer system run by a bloated lethargic non-caring red tape government bureaucracy (you ever dealt with the VA? That's a taste of it).

All those politicians you complain about? Bought off by lobbyists to do the bidding of corporations instead of listen to voters (this applies to BOTH Republicans AND Democrats). All the policies that get passed in our government as it exists now reflect which side has more money instead of which policies have more support with voters. We're a democracy in name only. Instead we've become a corporatocracy/oligarchy.

We're not a "democracy" at all. We are a representative republic. That's why the House and Senate flip power control from time to time. I don't see people like Rand Paul getting bought out. In fact, every time I see House members talk about cutting the spending budget in proposals, others come out screaming "Oh but the children will starve! The old people will be on the street!"

When the people have had enough, they will rebel. And they rebelled in November. We'll see what happens in the 2018 mid-term elections. But circling back to this issue of the FCC, again, it was about control and power, *NOT* about any best interest of the poor people or rural people with no high speed internet or even really protecting the consumer from fewer choices. How many smaller local or regional ISPs merged in buyouts by bigger ones under the last administration? How about Charter and TWC in 2015? Like I've stated the umpteenth time now: that road goes both ways.

 

[thedexmonster]

WTF. I think that pretty much says it all.

 

[thedexmonster]

WTF! I think that says it all.

 

[Joe_235]

This is the end of the internet..... Corporations are now running the country and we're paying for it..

 

[Mr5oh]

Just earlier this month Pai was saying the broadband market was too competitive for strict privacy rules. Most customers had 3+ options for broadband (of 3 Mbps!), his charts had over 90% covered with more than 2 options at this rate. Now he says we don't need net neutrality because many people only have 1 option? So which is it?

 

[ravewulf]

You can go to no less than three major health insurance providers like BC/BS right now and sign up for your own plan outside of the ACA. Many states now however are pulling out of the ACA in some states because it's not profitable there under ACA (gee, who never saw that coming). Even some private practice doctors and small hospitals are refusing to accept ACA patients because they are not getting reimbursed fast enough by the government to pay their own bills. ...

Yes because Medicare has been such an enormous success. Doctors are refusing to serve Medicare patients now because they too are not getting reimbursed fast enough. Why? Because funding was cut for Medicare to pay for Obamacare...to the tune of $718 billion. Sounds familiar. By 2028 it will be out of reserves.

It works perfectly fine in every single country except our own and there's a reason for that: corporations run amuck and politicians who listen to corporate donors instead of voters. The whole point is that there shouldn't be any profit motive involved at all when it comes to public health. You get sick and it's taken care of instead of having to go into debt just to cover your medical expenses. The idea of making money by making healthy people pay and denying coverage to people who are sick or forcing them into debt in order to be healthy is repulsive. This is what our tax dollars should be going to, not feeding the military industrial complex's bottomless pit of war profiteering and waste.

And we Americans always HAD health care insurance. In fact, when Obamacare was rammed through CONgress in the middle of the night without it being read, 86% of Americans already had health insurance coverage. But it sounded like more of a sob story to say 21 million were without coverage than 14%. The LAST thing we need is a single payer system run by a bloated lethargic non-caring red tape government bureaucracy (you ever dealt with the VA? That's a taste of it).

If other countries have 100% coverage, then so can we. Anything related to the VA: see my previous comments about bought politicians and the military industrial complex. They don't care about soldiers as long as we keep spending endless money on fighter jets we don't need and other expensive war materials.

We're not a "democracy" at all. We are a representative republic. That's why the House and Senate flip power control from time to time. I don't see people like Rand Paul getting bought out. In fact, every time I see House members talk about cutting the spending budget in proposals, others come out screaming "Oh but the children will starve! The old people will be on the street!"

When the people have had enough, they will rebel. And they rebelled in November. We'll see what happens in the 2018 mid-term elections. But circling back to this issue of the FCC, again, it was about control and power, *NOT* about any best interest of the poor people or rural people with no high speed internet or even really protecting the consumer from fewer choices. How many smaller local or regional ISPs merged in buyouts by bigger ones under the last administration? How about Charter and TWC in 2015? Like I've stated the umpteenth time now: that road goes both ways.

My point still stands, both Democrats and Republicans are paid for by corporations and so they do their bidding instead of listening to voters. That's why we keep swinging between bad and worse every few years. Rand Paul is one who isn't, although I disagree with his policies. Bernie Sanders is another who isn't and I agree with his policies. A few good people here and there doesn't negate that the rest of them are corrupt and don't actually give a damn about the people, regardless of what they say about protecting us.

 

[olin9]

I will start by getting on my soap box, and using my free speech.

Everything that is privatize increases the cost to the consumer. The ISPs need to be regulated like a utility, gas, water and elec. Verizon and Comcast have already been sued for slowing down your internet speed based on content.

Some companies follow the rule and law and try to be ethical businesses. The regulations are there to level the field and stop the unethical companies from taking advantage of the consumers or employees. Trump and his cronies are the most unethical businesses men in the USA, they are the scum at the bottom that the regulation were put in place to try and curb their unethical practices. Below are some comments for the bullet points in the article.

It will spur broadband deployment throughout the country and thus bring better, faster Internet service to more Americans. (the Consumer will pay for this).

It will create jobs by putting Americans to work deploying broadband networks and by creating the networks and online opportunities necessary for additional job growth and economic opportunity.(the Consumer will pay for this).

It will boost competition and choice in the broadband marketplace.(We need this, but competition will only happen if the competition can make more money and again, the Consumer will pay for this. The competition needs the right to compete, Comcast is doing everything it can to stop cites from offering free wireless broadband)

It will secure online privacy by putting the FTC—the nation’s premier consumer protection agency—back in charge of broadband providers’ privacy practices. (The FTC could do this, not sure if they would have enough power over the ISPs. Companies look at the bottom line $$$. If they make millions on breaking a regulation that would fine them $50,000. then it is better business $$ wise to breaking a regulation or the law. )

It will restore Internet Freedom by ending government micromanagement and returning to the bipartisan regulatory framework that worked well for decades. (Freedom for the ISP to make more money, that the Consumer will pay have to pay)

Ok off my soap box.

 

[quilciri]

Why do so many of the GOP plans seem to revolve around the basic template of taking away help or protections from the most vulnerable people, then trying to explain how doing so benefits them? Is it just me?

 

[hixbot]

You can't let the market control ISPs alone, when they have a monopoly. Like any utility that has a monopoly, only government regulation can prevent abusive corporate policies. Fact is, this decision will allow ISPs to discriminate their services based on the type of data you are communication. The FCC has the gall to pretend like it helps free speech not hinders it. What a complete lie. Congress are bowing to the telecom lobby to boost their profits and hurt consumers. Consumers have no choice to take their business elsewhere when the telecom monopolies collude to fundamentally discriminate data at the packet level. The concept that the market will self-regulate is a fallacy.

 

[dstarr3]

So our internet is ancient, slow, and overpriced, our infant mortality rate is laughable, and education/health insurance are luxuries. I would call this net neutrality stuff a first-world problem, but I'm pretty sure America isn't a first-world nation anymore.

 

[shrapnel_indie]

You can go to no less than three major health insurance providers like BC/BS right now and sign up for your own plan outside of the ACA. Many states now however are pulling out of the ACA in some states because it's not profitable there under ACA (gee, who never saw that coming). Even some private practice doctors and small hospitals are refusing to accept ACA patients because they are not getting reimbursed fast enough by the government to pay their own bills. ...

Yes because Medicare has been such an enormous success. Doctors are refusing to serve Medicare patients now because they too are not getting reimbursed fast enough. Why? Because funding was cut for Medicare to pay for Obamacare...to the tune of $718 billion. Sounds familiar. By 2028 it will be out of reserves.

It works perfectly fine in every single country except our own and there's a reason for that: corporations run amuck and politicians who listen to corporate donors instead of voters. The whole point is that there shouldn't be any profit motive involved at all when it comes to public health. You get sick and it's taken care of instead of having to go into debt just to cover your medical expenses. The idea of making money by making healthy people pay and denying coverage to people who are sick or forcing them into debt in order to be healthy is repulsive. This is what our tax dollars should be going to, not feeding the military industrial complex's bottomless pit of war profiteering and waste.

Seriously? Does it really? Long wait times, apathetic decision makers looking at how much you cost and making life-and-death decisions based on a monetary value.

And we Americans always HAD health care insurance. In fact, when Obamacare was rammed through CONgress in the middle of the night without it being read, 86% of Americans already had health insurance coverage. But it sounded like more of a sob story to say 21 million were without coverage than 14%. The LAST thing we need is a single payer system run by a bloated lethargic non-caring red tape government bureaucracy (you ever dealt with the VA? That's a taste of it).

If other countries have 100% coverage, then so can we. Anything related to the VA: see my previous comments about bought politicians and the military industrial complex. They don't care about soldiers as long as we keep spending endless money on fighter jets we don't need and other expensive war materials.

You expect a government ran health care system to be better? That they will actually care about little ol' you?

We're not a "democracy" at all. We are a representative republic. That's why the House and Senate flip power control from time to time. I don't see people like Rand Paul getting bought out. In fact, every time I see House members talk about cutting the spending budget in proposals, others come out screaming "Oh but the children will starve! The old people will be on the street!"

When the people have had enough, they will rebel. And they rebelled in November. We'll see what happens in the 2018 mid-term elections. But circling back to this issue of the FCC, again, it was about control and power, *NOT* about any best interest of the poor people or rural people with no high speed internet or even really protecting the consumer from fewer choices. How many smaller local or regional ISPs merged in buyouts by bigger ones under the last administration? How about Charter and TWC in 2015? Like I've stated the umpteenth time now: that road goes both ways.

My point still stands, both Democrats and Republicans are paid for by corporations and so they do their bidding instead of listening to voters. That's why we keep swinging between bad and worse every few years. Rand Paul is one who isn't, although I disagree with his policies. Bernie Sanders is another who isn't and I agree with his policies. A few good people here and there doesn't negate that the rest of them are corrupt and don't actually give a damn about the people, regardless of what they say about protecting us.

[/quotemsg]

And Bernie who complains about how much property/cars/toys corporate big-wigs own, yet has multiple million-dollar homes and a large cash inflow himself. There are reasons why the socialist Bernie Sanders failed in his bid for the presidency outside of any the DNC and the Clintons may or may not have created/leveraged.

 

[shrapnel_indie]

You can't let the market control ISPs alone, when they have a monopoly. Like any utility that has a monopoly, only government regulation can prevent abusive corporate policies. Fact is, this decision will allow ISPs to discriminate their services based on the type of data you are communication. The FCC has the gall to pretend like it helps free speech not hinders it. What a complete lie. Congress are bowing to the telecom lobby to boost their profits and hurt consumers. Consumers have no choice to take their business elsewhere when the telecom monopolies collude to fundamentally discriminate data at the packet level. The concept that the market will self-regulate is a fallacy.

Hence, the return of jurisdiction back to the FTC.

 

[shrapnel_indie]

Why do so many of the GOP plans seem to revolve around the basic template of taking away help or protections from the most vulnerable people, then trying to explain how doing so benefits them? Is it just me?

Why is it that people would rather sacrifice responsibility and freedoms to their government instead of actually looking out for themselves.... oh wait.... responsibility... hardly anybody wishes to be responsible and put in an effort on their own part... they want it done for them so they don't have to actually put forth effort.

 

[olin9]

@shrapnel_indie Have you every heard "you can't fight city hall"? the companies are bigger than city hall and most people don't have the time or the resources to fight every company that is unethical, but with the ISPs most of the time they are they the only option for internet, like for gas and water you only have one option. The ISPs need to be regulated and the fines for violating the regulations should be extreme.

So if you are getting assaulted by someone who did not like you using one of your freedoms like Speech. The government (police) should not step in to help? You should have the responsibility to take care of yourself and not use the government (police) that your taxes paid for. Help from the government is the same for everything you get from them. such as but not limited to Public Schools, trash pickup, Police, Social Security, snow removal, street construction and repair, food stamps, Military protection and medicare.

When you can take responsibility for yourself and stop using all of the other benefits your statement may have a little credibility.

No offense, just my 2 cents

 

[Thretosix]

Regulations were put in place because of the abuse that was happening. It's like saying if we remove the restrictions we believe they will behave this time... In the end big money and lobbyists win. Not Americans.

 

[oXY___]

(If this is a dual post, forgive me)

This has the potential to effect Online Games and Networks as well. Xbox Gold and PS + will have to charge more, while Steam would have to start (or worse offload it to the individual developers). Else expect more latency or disconnects, and any new or indie game service being unable to compete.

Before Naysayers mention this is all fear mongering. IT'S ALREADY HAPPENED. Look at the case of LoL and NY versus Time Warner. (Details may be off here which ISP). They were caught specifically intercepting and slowing down League of Legends traffic.

Now there won't be any rules stopping this or ability to take to court as easily.

As a indie developer, I am very afraid of the future.

 

[Thretosix]

(If this is a dual post, forgive me)

This has the potential to effect Online Games and Networks as well. Xbox Gold and PS + will have to charge more, while Steam would have to start (or worse offload it to the individual developers). Else expect more latency or disconnects, and any new or indie game service being unable to compete.

Before Naysayers mention this is all fear mongering. IT'S ALREADY HAPPENED. Look at the case of LoL and NY versus Time Warner. (Details may be off here which ISP). They were caught specifically intercepting and slowing down League of Legends traffic.

Now there won't be any rules stopping this or ability to take to court as easily.

As a indie developer, I am very afraid of the future.

I figured this went a lot further than my personal view of it. Thanks for sharing. There's nothing ethical about this.

 

[ravewulf]

Seriously? Does it really? Long wait times, apathetic decision makers looking at how much you cost and making life-and-death decisions based on a monetary value.

You're thinking of private health insurance. Can't afford treatment? Too bad, die quickly. Either that or go into massive debt you can't recover from. The massive costs of private health insurance also make people put off preventative care which could've prevented health issues from happening in the first place. Instead people wait until whatever problem they have becomes debilitating. All the other countries have it figured out. To them, we're stuck in the middle ages.

 

[Jhandey]

Spot on WHY_WOLF spot on ... this move by trumGOP will sure crush innovation and cripple the economy of most of US but not big telecom/cable...such a shame

 

[falchard]

You have to remember different countries count infant mortality differently. The US's metric is very different. Any baby that takes a breath is counted towards infant mortality. About 40% of infant deaths occur in the first 24 hours. Many countries do not count them for infant mortality, but rather miscarriages. Similarly in some countries if a baby does not weigh enough or is not tall enough they also do not count. The main reason is that they are considered unsalvageable in most countries with socialized medicine. They are not in the United States.
The US spends more than any other country on healthcare and what is possible shows. It is why elites in socialized countries treat their rare illnesses in the United States. Weirdly, the US government spends the same per capita as the UK government on Universal Healthcare. With reform it is possible for the US to have universal healthcare without increasing spending by the US government. But then again, I think the majority of Americans will like the inconveniences of Universal Healthcare. For instance 3 years for a new pair of glasses instead of 1. It's also difficult to die in the US due to lack of medical care. There is usually assistance available if you are in a dire situation. The emergency room cannot turn people away. It would be nice to have reform in this area to improve care, and there are definitely areas for improvement. However, it is not some horrid system. People simply don't understand the advantages it has brought.

Onto monopolies, get mad at your local government. The ones who enforce the monopolies are the local governments. There is nothing Pai can do to prevent this cronyism. All he can do is make measures that would reduce the barrier of entry at the federal level. The whole point of Title II was to create a telephone monopoly in order to bring about universal land-line. The negative effects of that are quite clear from the 50 years it plagued this country. What Pai has done since becoming chairman is commendable for increasing access to internet for rural customers which are the least served in the US. How the changes will turn out will take years to know.

 

[MASOUTH]

...but the last time I checked, people can live without the internet in their home. There's free WiFi out there just about everywhere and even free computers at public libraries (where public transportation can take you in larger cities if you don't have a car).

You say that as if all those free hotspots are going to be sprinkled with magical fairy dust and not be affected by this as well. I'm not talking about your whole post but, for this particular blurb, you seem to be missing the forest for the trees

 

[quilciri]

Why do so many of the GOP plans seem to revolve around the basic template of taking away help or protections from the most vulnerable people, then trying to explain how doing so benefits them? Is it just me?

Why is it that people would rather sacrifice responsibility and freedoms to their government instead of actually looking out for themselves.... oh wait.... responsibility... hardly anybody wishes to be responsible and put in an effort on their own part... they want it done for them so they don't have to actually put forth effort.

Standard GOP response: poor people are lazy.

Yeah those people working two full time jobs that still can't make ends meet are really lazy...

 

[shrapnel_indie]

Why do so many of the GOP plans seem to revolve around the basic template of taking away help or protections from the most vulnerable people, then trying to explain how doing so benefits them? Is it just me?

Why is it that people would rather sacrifice responsibility and freedoms to their government instead of actually looking out for themselves.... oh wait.... responsibility... hardly anybody wishes to be responsible and put in an effort on their own part... they want it done for them so they don't have to actually put forth effort.

Standard GOP response: poor people are lazy.

Yeah those people working two full time jobs that still can't make ends meet are really lazy...

Sorry, I am not Republican... my traits lean more Libertarian to Constitutional. You're pretty quick to label there.

This doesn't stop with poor people. I see it in all walks of life: employed as well as unemployed. those with money and those struggling to make ends met, and those without money too. I see this attitude not favoring one group over another in whom it can manipulate.

 

[falchard]

I was a classical liberal. Then I decided it's best to be a Republican because they are the party of the rich. If all it took was being a Republican to be rich, I should have joined sooner.