FCC Plans To Dismantle Net Neutrality Rules

Status
Not open for further replies.

compprob237

Distinguished
May 17, 2009
352
35
18,890
39
Just love the weasel words Pai uses.
"buy the service plan that's best for them"
Ah, so my choice of one internet service provider means I can either deal with what they have or have no internet. Gotcha.
 

Colin_10

Reputable
Feb 9, 2016
50
0
4,640
1
Has anyone else noticed that a few years ago Commercials on TV got way louder? You could be watching your show at a normal volume and then as it swaps to a commercial suddenly its so loud you scramble for your remote to mute it... Yeah this kind of reminds me of that. I understand why TV companies do this, because people walk away from the TV while it's on commercial, but holy shit is it annoying. This will be the same, things people don't want, aka the commercials and adds will be downloading at max speed, while your desired content will be at a reduced speed. Then when you call ATT and tell them your speed is slower than advertised they direct you to a site they own to test the speed, and low and behold, wow it's just up to their specs!!!! Amazing!
 
Obama's Net Neutrality was never meant to be what it was intended for: supporting free market competition and increasing consumer choice as well as pulling in the reigns of how much an ISP/cable company controls a certain market. Instead, it was a Trojan Horse for controlling content on the internet. We were close to becoming China with it where the federal government controls what people are allowed to see. If Net Neutrality was done as intended, then we'd never have had ISP and cable mergers under the second term of the Obama administration. Its mission had little to do with preventing Amazon Prime members seeing their streaming service go to a crawl because they had Comcast Xfinity. Classic big government meddling is nothing new of course no matter who is president, but I am glad Net Neutrality (a misnomer if I ever heard of one) is dead.

And I'll bring up another point: would Net Neutrality have done anything about Google and Facebook targeting their news feeds and search engines based on political stance which they do and are so brash as to deny they do it? Google, Facebook, and Twitter are monopolies by the very definition used by the FTC. They control more than 50% of social media and search engine markets. They can and do impose on their customers restrictions based on their views as to what is and is not "appropriate" to be posted on the internet (and more often than not as we've increasingly witnessed, it's been politically motivated). And the kicker to that is that it is these same institutions who are advocating federal government oversight on internet use and supported NN! I took the red pill, thank you.
 


LOL. It's nothing new. Cable companies have been doing that for decades. I first started noticing it as a kid when we first got cable back in the 1970s. I remember even reading an article where some "independent" company did a study about all the complaints from people about commercial volumes, and they concluded it was in our minds. Yeah right. And how much money did those advertisers and cable companies pay you to come to that conclusion again?

But regarding internet speed, it's not always on the ISP. Bandwidth usage can change that depending on time of day or night. It's also the infrastructure of your neighborhood and even the wiring to your home that can affect it. To this day, ISP/cable companies are spending money replacing decades old network cabling and upgrading it. I have AT&T Uverse and we are probably within 85% of the performance we are paying for. I contacted them and they got a technician out to trouble shoot. He essentially said it was due to living in a home and neighborhood that was built in the 1970s and there was only so much they could do. A friend in a new neighborhood a few miles away gets almost exactly his rated speed performance with Comcast Xfinity. Same thing with 1GB fiber: it's not available everywhere because the infrastructure (both home and neighborhood) is not there or compatible.

With that said, if it becomes known that consumers are not getting at least most of what they pay for in an ISP's performance in a certain market, then that is a case for a class action lawsuit where each customer gets reimbursed. So far, I have yet to see that happen. In our litigation happy America, lawyers would be fighting each other to take that class action claim on.
 


Well, like I said - I took the red pill and am awake. I've been on this planet for half a century now and am older and wiser. I've witnessed a lot in that time, and some time ago I got fed up with being lied to by our government. Not once, not twice, not randomly, but nearly ALL the time. And it doesn't matter what political party controls Washington. I trust those who implemented NN about as far as I can throw an engine block from a car.

When politicians say a program of theirs is for a certain reason or cause, you can bet that's not really why they implemented it. The fact that the supporters or foes of it are essentially divided down political lines is all I need to know (like the so-called man-made climate change science being settled). Now if you want to refute any of my points, I'm all ears.

And another point: I never hear any gamers out there complain about pay to play games (you pay more for more content, no advertisements, etc.). You want faster ISP service, pay for it. We have become a society where everyone expects to be entitled to everything they want for free. Having equal access and speed to the internet is not a right. And again, I duly note your ignoring my mentioning of ISP/cable mergers under the Obama administration while this NN idea was concocted. And the silence from NN and so-called "Digital Democracy" advocates about the tactics of Google, Facebook, and Twitter is duly noted as well.
 

TJ Hooker

Glorious
Ambassador

[Emphasis mine]
Lack of ISP competition/local monopolies are issues, but not not issues related to net neutrality, nor were the Obama-era net neutrality laws ever supposed to (or described as) fixing them AFAIK. So yes, it really does seem like you missed the point of net neutrality.
Regarding your claims about the previous NN laws being a trojan horse for the government controlling the web, how so? I routinely see that sort of reactionary rhetoric from people who seem to think that any government regulation is the first step to tyranny, but I don't think I've ever seen anyone describe how those laws would have paved the way for the government seizing control the web.
 

TJ Hooker

Glorious
Ambassador

Seriously? I see gamers complain about all the time. Did you miss EA getting crucified a week or two ago for all the pay-to-unlock content in Battlefront 2?
 


[sigh] The core of Net Neutrality was about control over ISPs and servicing (or non-servicing) their customers and their markets. It's the classic slippery slope situation. But beside that, the FCC imposes more regulations on ISPs and cable companies than in mobile telecom companies. Have you ever thought why is that? You can't control someone's phone call and personal communication across said FCC controlled airwaves.
.


Well fortunately we will never find out. But again, I don't trust anything politicians do when it comes to interfering in our private enterprise industry. We are a free market society for a reason. The very idea that nobody complains about the censorship of the Facebook, Googletube, and Twitter monopolies are all I need to know about the authenticity of what NN would have been for America.
 


I wasn't clear. I was talking about the free P2P games that have ads and whatnot have you have to buy more content, not complete games you buy that have DLC and whatnot. But yes, EA got their backsides slapped so hard in outrage that they reversed their stance on the lockbox or whatever you call it for Battlefront II. I feel sorry for the suckers who paid $80 for the "Deluxe" edition over the standard edition and didn't really get anything more out of it. But, nobody forces anyone to buy a game. EA/DICE gets away with it time after time because people keep buying their games.

But back to NN, I live in a suburban area of a major US city and have no less than four ISP/cable company choices on top of satellite choices. If I'm not happy with how my ISP services me, I go to another. And I have. If my Amazon Prime membership starts letting me down in streaming through my PS4 because they know I have AT&T Uverse, I'll drop them too. I don't need the government to hold my consumer hand. This is all what NN was originally about. I don't know how I can make it any more clear.
 

doesitmatter

Honorable
May 3, 2012
13
0
10,510
0
"Under Obama, the FCC treated broadband providers like public utilities..."

The internet IS a public utility. Anyone that doesn't see that in this day and age is delusional.
 


You are correct in that like water and power. However, just like with water and power services, you have to pay for that service. If you use more water and power than your neighbor, you get charged for that accordingly. No two homes that I know of ever have equal billing on water and power use. But let's just get to the root of the complaints about NN being dead in the water: the perception that everyone has a right to equal speed high speed internet access is what this all boils down to. Would you be happy paying a flat rate for power and water being a single person in a home where the family of five across the street pays the same flat rate but uses 5x more water and power than you? I didn't think so.
 

kiniku

Distinguished
Mar 27, 2009
165
0
18,680
0
Regardless of what your politics may be, I believe that some authorities need to be taken from presidentially appointed bureaus and commissions and given back to the legislative branch. For example immigration and the FCC. We can't have major policies flip-flopping back and force between presidents. Net neutrality imposed by government bureaucrats is not the conduit for fairness. It would just become another political means of income/freedom re-distribution.
 
Not sure where people are serious and when trolling. Please DFTT.

End to net neutrality (or even an approximation of net neutrality) is terrible. The family lives on netflix and hulu. Those were the big losers last time ISPs could block/slow service unless the provider paid up. Wonder if ISP has the right to re-order google search results or overlay adds in pages...
 


^^This guy gets it too.



Are you seriously saying that streaming from Hulu or Netflix is a necessity? A family needs food, water, and shelter (power/utilities) to survive. They have to pay for all of it. None of them are free even if they live in government sanctioned housing and eat on government provided food stamps. I do not see where no Hulu or Netflix is going to cause a family to be in peril or otherwise in any life threatening event like a natural disaster. And your comment on Google being forced to change their search engines already happens - they do it themselves and it's on the increase and politically motivated if you've ever paid attention.
 

TJ Hooker

Glorious
Ambassador

Are you talking about the concept of NN in general, or specifically the NN laws introduced in the US in 2015? What is the slippery slope you're talking about?
And I wasn't aware that the FCC imposes more regulations on ISPs/cable companies than mobile telecom, but I don't get what you're trying to imply with that statement.
 

Giroro

Honorable
Jan 22, 2015
616
90
11,090
13
The repeal of net neutrality will cause the greatest economic crisis and depression that the world has ever seen.

The second that a major telecom realizes that it can legally "compete" with Google, Amazon, Facebook, Microsoft, apple, Netflix, etc. By blocking their internet access ... It's all over. If an ISP decides it can get a better deal from banks by blocking people from accessing their accounts or from using their credit cards, then that will happen too.
VPNs, Tor, P2P, https... Any encryption at all really will either be blocked entirely or be segregated to enterprise services that cost more than you make in a year.
Small businesses and startups will not be able no innovate, because they will not be allowed to exist in the first place, because telecoms have no reason to allow them to exist. What will Apple's business model be when cell carriers demand "all the money" for every app store transaction, under threat of blocking the store and itunes in its entirety?
Why would a cell carrier allow internet access to chat apps and email, when they can instead force you to pay $1.99 per 140 character SMS?
And Netflix? Forget about it, even if they could raise prices enough to afford a "fast lane", they would still be banned from the internet out ofc spite. Even if you were paying $60 a month to watch stranger things, Comcast knows it would make far more money by eliminating the competition and forcing you back into their $120 per month cable packages.

This is a terrifying and dangerous shift in power, being spearheaded by Ajit Pai, who is frankly the worst American alive. He is obviously and overwhelmingly corrupt. His position is indefensible and his arguments utter nonsense.

There are trillions of dollars on the line. Just look at a list of the largest companies in America - all of which would be crippled if not outright destroyed if they were cut off from the web. A tiny oligopoly would have the power to make 20% of America's GDP vanish overnight -legally-. Not even the US government itself could negotiate against such a threat.

This is a national emergency. Net neutrality needs to be legislatively protected and the FCC needs to be stripped of the power to destroy America's most precious resource. It would be less damaging to the country to legalize murder. The importance of this issue cannot be over emphasised. Call your congressman while the telecoms still allow you to have phone service. (did I mention FCC regulations requiring landline services to be maintained and proven-functional have already been repealed? )
 

Giroro

Honorable
Jan 22, 2015
616
90
11,090
13
@10tacle
" But beside that, the FCC imposes more regulations on ISPs and cable companies than in mobile telecom companies. Have you ever thought why is that?"

Physical lines are more heavily regulated because, like every other utility, those lines are installed on public land, and it is actually illegal for competing lines to be laid alongside then.

That said, most of the "liberal media" is ultimately owned by a telecom. Your "red pill" websites and competing conservative news will be among the first content blocked.
The FCC recently repealed fundamental anti-monopoly laws preventing broadcasters, local print media, and radio from being combined into a single monolithic media source.
Minutes later, Comcast (internet giant and owner of CNBC) announced their plans to buy Fox. What are you going to do when all your print, radio, tv, and INTERNET news are all being censored by a single source?
 


I'm talking about both the general concept of it and the capability it would have given to the federal government on governing the internet. And I'm referring to more FCC control over ISP/cable companies than telecom companies because they can control those company's actions (limiting access to websites, etc.) more than they can control a mobile phone conversation.
 


The Great Depression? Please tell me you are being sarcastic. My grandfather had to struggle during that time. Representatives of Congress, on record, have been targeting Conservative radio show hosts for as long as I can remember in trying to get them shut down (Rush is their #1 target with Hannity, Savage, and Prager next in line). More recently they have gone after Conservative websites (Breitbart) with even Hillary mentioning that site in her campaign last year as a "racist" and "hate" site.

They even want Drudge shut down and he's only a news aggregate website that links to many stories. They don't like seeing linked stories that makes their party look bad (same for Republicans for that matter). So that's no news to me. Now, you tell me what Conservative news and websites were inhibited prior to the NN farce. Because I've been on the internet for over 20 years and never have seen that type of censorship yet. And it's exactly why both political parties want more control over it. This is not rocket science.

With that said, again as I stated previously, I see nobody complaining about how Facebook, Google, and Twitter censor access to free content which mostly revolves around politics. And that's not an opinion, that's a fact. Tying this in with NN, anyone with a brain can see how that power could eventually be abused into controlling internet content, specifiically in what *they* define as "offensive." The fact that so many could not see that is a very real scary thought - and I don't care what political spectrum they hail from. And I'm going to leave it at that because this is borderline crossing against a golden rule of Tom's about not discussing politics.

 

JohnC5

Commendable
Apr 3, 2016
2
0
1,510
0


Actually, many of the power companies are trying to get to a flat rate for residential customers by jacking up monthly fees. It's not unusual today for some residential customers to pay 7-10x the monthly fee they were paying 5-7 years ago. This is their way to combat homeowners from installing solar panels. They also fight for laws that make it illegal to not connect your house to the grid as they know in the future when battery technology improves being off the grid will be a realistic option for many home owners.
 

ravewulf

Distinguished
Oct 20, 2008
929
1
18,985
0
@10tacle Net Neutrality means ISPs cannot treat bytes from one website any differently from another. No slowing down or blocking access to any site. No speeding up or special deals for an ISP's preferred sites. No slowing down competitors then making them purchase "preferred access" to return to normal speeds. A byte is a byte and it doesn't matter what the content is.

Dismantling the Net Neutrality rules means ISPs can discriminate against or alternately provide preferential treatment to certain sites or types of content.

It has nothing to do with the actual content of websites or services and everything to do with ACCESS to those sites and services.
 


Oh I am well familiar with that as I locked in a flat rate natural gas bill. Before I locked in, one month several years ago I was facing a $256 gas bill during a cold winter. I have not had it above $100 since although some of that is due to living smarter (putting on clothes in the winter time indoors and turning the thermostat down).

Regarding power companies punishing solar users, perhaps that needs to be investigated. Many regional power utilities are government owned and controlled or co-ops with private companies, so that would be an interesting battle with the Feds.
 


As I stated, NN was listed as supporting just that, which means controlling competition and private enterprise. While at face value it sounds like a noble cause, the federal government taking over control of ISPs/cable companies is a very, VERY dangerous precedent. There would be nothing to stop them from controlling what said ISPs/cable companies provide in content.



And like I said above, if Amazon jacks me over in my Prime streaming account because they do not like the fact I have AT&T Uverse, then I'lll drop them like a hot potato. This is what is getting lost on so many people. The market always, ALWAYS wins over when consumers get ticked off enough. The government needs to stay out of it other than funding the infrastructure for those living in rural areas who still do not have high speed ISP service (like FDR's Depression-era Tennessee Valley Authority).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS