FCC Releases Plan to End Net Neutrality!!

[seedubs1]

How about when ATT and Comcast both decide they don’t like firearm forums and flat out block sites like this?

.....but freedom for ISPs.....let’s give them the power to do that. Trust them, they won’t abuse their power.

something something hand over your guns, trust the government something something

My cable provider has moved all the outdoor channels to the premium package.

What happens when my ISP decides that this forum deserves an upcharge or reduced speed due to content they disagree with?

I’m sure there will be a whole lot of angry posts that no one can read.

 

[jamil]

Yup.....hurling.....hurling insults

Just pointing out that the freedom argument really is a dumb argument. Read the rest of my post. The freedom argument is always an argument for taking away freedom from one party and giving it to another. In this case, some are arguing for more freedom for giant mega corporations while stripping freedom from your average citizen. It really is a dumb argument.

And I think we’re on the same page regarding law. Take all power away from unelected branches of government regarding law making. I would like to see the FCC, BATFE, etc... relegated to being enforcers of law.....not unelected dictators of what the law is and makers of said laws. Those branches should be gutted and all power stripped and given back to the people and elected officials.

I don't think you're representing the entire freedom argument. Presumably competition would be the free-market solution to throttling, excluding, of specific content or providers. A better counter argument, and really this is the only thing that even makes me uncertain about not supporting NN is that there isn't a free market in the internet provider space now. A Hobson's choice isn't a choice. A monopoly company saying take it or leave it isn't a free market choice. I'm stuck with Spectrum, one of the lousiest providers in the US. Google Fiber is laying fiber in the greater Louisville area now. I'm just hoping they come out here this far.

Short of a system where the ownership of the lines connecting to your house is separate from the content/service providers I'm not sure we can get there. But think of it. If any company could lease the lines in any community, then Spectrum, Comcast, ATT, and everyone else, would have to compete head to head for your subscriptions. If one provider throttled stuff you like, there could be plenty of providers who don't. With everyone having to compete in the same space with the same rules, Ethos would then matter a lot more than it does now. Spectrum can **** everyone as hard as they want, and since for many of us, they're the only provider, you either take the ****ing to get internet, or you leave it and you don't.

 

[Tanfodude]

I don't see any better argument in anti NN either. It's all speculation that without NN, there'll be an open compitition from ISP. Before 2015, did these big companies attempted to proposed what they're proposing now? If they did, then the NN law worked. If comparing times, was the streaming demands high back then compared to now? Paid priorities? Also my internet speed been a lot faster now that before, it may not be related to the NN. Unless you work for these companies, why are you siding with them? I'm looking at this on the consumer side. These corporations don't care what the consumers think. Also having NN now, as a consumer, what are you missing or not gaining?

Freedumb? Really? **** like that makes the pro NN side seem really superficial. You start hurling insult when you got no better argument. The more I read this thread the more it seems the pro NN side is based on fear/uncertainty/doubt.

I don’t like the things you guys are afraid of happening either, but you haven’t made a good case that they were happening before NN in 2015, and you haven’t made a good case that they would happen if the NN policy was ended.

The other side hasn’t made a good case that NN has really stifled their growth other than that providers have to find other ways to **** people as hard as they’d like to.

Here’s what I’d like to see. Neuter the FCC such that they’re just an enforcement bureaucracy and not part of the fourth branch of government. If we need NN let Congress make the law. I’d like to see a bill that creates some fair rules to keep providers and consumers honest, and that’s about it.

 

[HailtotheGM]

In 1773, Flyers went up around Boston.

“Are we in like Manner to be given up to the Disposal of the East India Company, who have now the Assurance, to step forth in Aid of the Minister, to execute his Plan, of enslaving America? Their Conduct in Asia, for some Minutes past, has given simple Proof, how little they regard the Laws of Nations, the Rights, Liberties, or Lives of Men.
“They have levied War, excited Rebellions, dethroned lawful Princes, and sacrificed Millions for the Sake of Gain. The Revenues of Mighty Kingdoms have centered in their Coffers. And these not being sufficient to glut their Avarice, they have, by the most unparalleled Barbarities, Extortions, and Monopolies, stripped the miserable Inhabitants of their Property, and reduced whole Provinces to Indigence and Ruin.
“Fifteen hundred Thousands, it is said, perished by Famine in one Year, not because the Earth denied its Fruits; but [because] this Company and their Servants engulfed all the Necessaries of Life, and set them at so high a Rate that the poor could not purchase them.
“Resolve therefore, nobly resolve, and publish to the World your Resolutions, that no Man will receive the Tea, no Man will let his Stores, or suffer the Vessel that brings it to moor at his Wharf, and that if any Person assists at unloading, landing, or storing it, he shall ever after be deemed an Enemy to his Country, and never be employed by his Fellow Citizens.”

“Friends, Brethren, Countrymen! That worst of plagues, the detested TEA, has arrived in this harbour. The hour of destruction, a manly opposition to the machinations of tyranny, stares you in the face. Every friend to his country, to himself, and to posterity, is now called upon to meet in Faneuil Hall, at nine o’clock, this day, at which time the bells will ring, to make a united and successful resistance to this last, worst, and most destructive measure of administration.”

This was largely a result of the British Crown giving the East India company full and unlimited access to the American Tea Trade, and exempting that company from having to pay taxes on the tea imported to British colonies, without the colonists having been given any say in the matter.

To me, the point of if repealing net neutrality will create or stifle innovation and competition is a moot point.

The United States pays more for Internet than just about any other developed country out there, and gets a slower speed because those profits are not be used to improve infrastructure to keep up with demand. That bothers me.

A majority of voters support net neutrality, no matter what poll you look at. The repeal of these protections has been brought up repeatedly, despite the fact that a majority continues to support those protections. It's a war of attrition, against the will of the majority. That bothers me.

A massive case of identity theft was perpetrated wherein the names and personal information of hundreds of thousands of Americans were used to comment in favor of repealing net neutrality on the FCC's web site. When this massive case of identity theft was uncovered, the FCC was asked for information to assist with the investigation, as their servers could tell us where the fake comments were posted from. Comments that support the stated position of the FCC Chairman. The FCC has ignored these requests. That is suspicious as hell, and it bothers me.

The FCC states that without net neutrality, the people will still be protected by the Federal Trade Commission, but a court case currently in progress may strip away those protections. The FCC has been asked by a coalition of dozens of consumer protection groups to delay the vote until that case is decided, but the FCC has refused. That bothers me.

28 Senators have asked the FCC to delay the vote until the matter of the Identity thefts that occurred can be investigated. You know, the damned suspicious ones that the FCC refuses to assist investigators with? The FCC refused this request as well. That bothers me.

The Chairman of the FCC is a former employee of Verizon, an entity that has lobbied for years to block or remove these protections. That is a clear conflict of interest. That bothers me.

I don't know the future. But I do know a few things that happened in the past.

AOL once blocked emails containing a link to an online petition critical of AOL.

In 2005, Telus began blocking access to a server that hosted a website supporting a labor strike against the company. Researchers at Harvard and the University of Toronto found that this action resulted in Telus blocking an additional 766 unrelated sites.

In 2007, AT&T censored Pearl Jam because lead singer criticized President Bush.

In 2010, Windstream Communications, a DSL provider with more than 1 million customers at the time, copped to hijacking user-search queries made using the Google toolbar within Firefox. Users who believed they had set the browser to the search engine of their choice were redirected to Windstream’s own search portal and results.


The problem we're dealing with here is that these large ISPs have struck deals with municipalities that effectively create monopolies, and we can't remove those protections until those monopolies are dealt with. And they aren't just delivering tea - they're delivering information.

For better or for worse, the internet is the world's main tool for communication now. Removing net neutrality doesn't take the monopoly away from the East India Company - it just makes sure that the East India Company is in a position to take all those pesky notices off the trees before anyone can see them. And they are doing this right in front of us, against the will of the majority.

 

[HoughMade]

All I know is that everything is better with government regulation and the market never solves anything.

 

[wtburnette]

I don't think you're representing the entire freedom argument. Presumably competition would be the free-market solution to throttling, excluding, of specific content or providers. A better counter argument, and really this is the only thing that even makes me uncertain about not supporting NN is that there isn't a free market in the internet provider space now. A Hobson's choice isn't a choice. A monopoly company saying take it or leave it isn't a free market choice. I'm stuck with Spectrum, one of the lousiest providers in the US. Google Fiber is laying fiber in the greater Louisville area now. I'm just hoping they come out here this far.

Short of a system where the ownership of the lines connecting to your house is separate from the content/service providers I'm not sure we can get there. But think of it. If any company could lease the lines in any community, then Spectrum, Comcast, ATT, and everyone else, would have to compete head to head for your subscriptions. If one provider throttled stuff you like, there could be plenty of providers who don't. With everyone having to compete in the same space with the same rules, Ethos would then matter a lot more than it does now. Spectrum can **** everyone as hard as they want, and since for many of us, they're the only provider, you either take the ****ing to get internet, or you leave it and you don't.

You have the gist of it. If there was a ton of competition in the ISP space, repealing NN wouldn't be as big of a deal, as the market would sort things out. The way things are, consumers will just have to either put up with whatever their ISP does, or not access the internet, which is not really a viable choice for a lot of people. I had to stop watching the cat video thing that was posted a couple pages back when they made the ludicrous statement that paid prioritization would be no big deal, because of an ISP implemented it, other ISP's would magically spring up and offer consumers something better. Um, no. It doesn't happen that way at all.

An easy way to look at this issue is, if a company participating in a defacto monopoly/duopoly wants to get rid of certain regulations, chances are you as a consumer do not want that to happen.

 

[actaeon277]

In 1773, Flyers went up around Boston.





This was largely a result of the British Crown giving the East India company full and unlimited access to the American Tea Trade, and exempting that company from having to pay taxes on the tea imported to British colonies, without the colonists having been given any say in the matter.

To me, the point of if repealing net neutrality will create or stifle innovation and competition is a moot point.

The United States pays more for Internet than just about any other developed country out there, and gets a slower speed because those profits are not be used to improve infrastructure to keep up with demand. That bothers me.

A majority of voters support net neutrality, no matter what poll you look at. The repeal of these protections has been brought up repeatedly, despite the fact that a majority continues to support those protections. It's a war of attrition, against the will of the majority. That bothers me.

A massive case of identity theft was perpetrated wherein the names and personal information of hundreds of thousands of Americans were used to comment in favor of repealing net neutrality on the FCC's web site. When this massive case of identity theft was uncovered, the FCC was asked for information to assist with the investigation, as their servers could tell us where the fake comments were posted from. Comments that support the stated position of the FCC Chairman. The FCC has ignored these requests. That is suspicious as hell, and it bothers me.

The FCC states that without net neutrality, the people will still be protected by the Federal Trade Commission, but a court case currently in progress may strip away those protections. The FCC has been asked by a coalition of dozens of consumer protection groups to delay the vote until that case is decided, but the FCC has refused. That bothers me.

28 Senators have asked the FCC to delay the vote until the matter of the Identity thefts that occurred can be investigated. You know, the damned suspicious ones that the FCC refuses to assist investigators with? The FCC refused this request as well. That bothers me.

The Chairman of the FCC is a former employee of Verizon, an entity that has lobbied for years to block or remove these protections. That is a clear conflict of interest. That bothers me.

I don't know the future. But I do know a few things that happened in the past.

AOL once blocked emails containing a link to an online petition critical of AOL.

In 2005, Telus began blocking access to a server that hosted a website supporting a labor strike against the company. Researchers at Harvard and the University of Toronto found that this action resulted in Telus blocking an additional 766 unrelated sites.

In 2007, AT&T censored Pearl Jam because lead singer criticized President Bush.

In 2010, Windstream Communications, a DSL provider with more than 1 million customers at the time, copped to hijacking user-search queries made using the Google toolbar within Firefox. Users who believed they had set the browser to the search engine of their choice were redirected to Windstream’s own search portal and results.


The problem we're dealing with here is that these large ISPs have struck deals with municipalities that effectively create monopolies, and we can't remove those protections until those monopolies are dealt with. And they aren't just delivering tea - they're delivering information.

For better or for worse, the internet is the world's main tool for communication now. Removing net neutrality doesn't take the monopoly away from the East India Company - it just makes sure that the East India Company is in a position to take all those pesky notices off the trees before anyone can see them. And they are doing this right in front of us, against the will of the majority.

View attachment 61486

The United States pays more for Internet than just about any other developed country out there
Well, people also average more pay here than other places. Are we going to demand everyone take a pay cut.
Higher pay is going to show up in increased costs for services.


The problem we're dealing with here is that these large ISPs have struck deals with municipalities that effectively create monopolies
Then maybe we should find a way to eliminate monopolies.
Government creating problems is rarely fixed with more government.

 

[BugI02]

View attachment 61507

 

[seedubs1]

.....except this is a case where the .gov has already intervened and ****ed us all to where we now have only a few companies and no real competition or free market. Taking away that .gov intervention and letting the monopolies operate unchecked is a recipe for ****ing the customers.

So your pie in the sky anti .gov thinking is just that...fanciful thinking

All I know is that everything is better with government regulation and the market never solves anything.

 

[seedubs1]

Again.....wtb gets it. We’re dealing with monopolies here.....not a free and open market with true competition vying for your business.

You have the gist of it. If there was a ton of competition in the ISP space, repealing NN wouldn't be as big of a deal, as the market would sort things out. The way things are, consumers will just have to either put up with whatever their ISP does, or not access the internet, which is not really a viable choice for a lot of people. I had to stop watching the cat video thing that was posted a couple pages back when they made the ludicrous statement that paid prioritization would be no big deal, because of an ISP implemented it, other ISP's would magically spring up and offer consumers something better. Um, no. It doesn't happen that way at all.

An easy way to look at this issue is, if a company participating in a defacto monopoly/duopoly wants to get rid of certain regulations, chances are you as a consumer do not want that to happen.

 

[seedubs1]

Thats fine.....but rolling back net neutrality and giving all the power to the monopolies the .gov created is not the right way to go about this.

The problem we're dealing with here is that these large ISPs have struck deals with municipalities that effectively create monopolies
Then maybe we should find a way to eliminate monopolies.
Government creating problems is rarely fixed with more government.

 

[Tombs]

I've dove deep on every angle to this entire debate... Keeping NN worries me. The biggest corporations on the planet are pushing for it, the biggest radical left wing supporters are pushing for it, and ever since NN passed conservatives have been persecuted en-mass online.

Before NN I don't remember there being much censorship on the internet, I'm not sure whether that boils down to political radicalization of today or if NN provided the tools necessary to do it.

At the end of the day, Soros is supporting it. That's more or less all the additional push I need to assume it's not in my best interest.

What I want to know is why do near-3rd world neighborhoods in Romania have fiber optic internet for $15 a month, while the best I can get is 10mbps DSL that only became available a few years ago in my area.

 

[JAL]

Posted this link to the other thread and putting it here as well . . .

Want an idea about what to expect with zero net neutrality? There's another turf war raging now between Google and Amazon with Google blocking YouTube access on all Amazon devices (this isn't the first time there's been turf wars):


https://apnews.com/143dad39c16e4611861e59a5736e149f


It's a harbinger of things to come when Net Neutrality goes out the window.

In a similar vein:
AWS (Amazon Web Services) gets periodically blocked by other services, ostensibly under the guise of their email servers being used to originate SPAM. The reality in nearly all cases is wanting to drive AWS customers off of using AWS by making their lives miserable for using AWS. My brother, an IT guy for a small company, has been down the path of finding out why their emails are being blocked by certain domains. Invariably it turns out that it's a "turf war" being waged under the guise that AWS in general is used by spammers. I don't know of any major services that aren't used by spammers. The first message he gets from them is to stop using AWS and to use the "XYZ" service which isn't blocked.

Take away Net Neutrality and watch the Internet Holy Wars begin. The people actually trying to use the Internet become collateral damage.

John

 

[Streck-Fu]

NN opens the door for your cell carrier to be regulated the same as your home ISP.
Asking the government to fix a problem they created strikes me as insane.

This whole thing started with Obama personally pressuring the ACC at the same time the were pushing the Fairness Doctrine.

That alone should give you pause.

 

[Cameramonkey]

How about when ATT and Comcast both decide they don’t like firearm forums and flat out block sites like this?

.....but freedom for ISPs.....let’s give them the power to do that. Trust them, they won’t abuse their power.

something something hand over your guns, trust the government something something

I've dove deep on every angle to this entire debate... Keeping NN worries me. The biggest corporations on the planet are pushing for it, the biggest radical left wing supporters are pushing for it, and ever since NN passed conservatives have been persecuted en-mass online.

Before NN I don't remember there being much censorship on the internet, I'm not sure whether that boils down to political radicalization of today or if NN provided the tools necessary to do it.

At the end of the day, Soros is supporting it. That's more or less all the additional push I need to assume it's not in my best interest.

What I want to know is why do near-3rd world neighborhoods in Romania have fiber optic internet for $15 a month, while the best I can get is 10mbps DSL that only became available a few years ago in my area.

I specifically recall issues before NN where carriers were making their competition's services run like crap (or even block them outright) because they were butthurt you were not willing to pay for THEIR overpriced service.

Think about it. (work with me here, its a stretch) If you were an Uber driver and you were selling your passengers $5 bottles of water, how eager would you be to detour into a parking lot so they could hit the McD's drive thru for a $1 bottle of water, cutting into your overpriced margins? Wouldnt you be tempted to either outright say "No. This is my transport. Either buy my water or you get nothing." , or lie to the passenger? "Sorry, I heard they ran out of water" Or simply parking on the far side of the lot, making them get out and walk a long distance to get what they want from your competitor out of spite.

Because that is what was happening with some carriers. They would make life hell for their competition until they were forced to treat all traffic equal.

 

[Tombs]

I specifically recall issues before NN where carriers were making their competition's services run like crap (or even block them outright) because they were butthurt you were not willing to pay for THEIR overpriced service.

Think about it. (work with me here, its a stretch) If you were an Uber driver and you were selling your passengers $5 bottles of water, how eager would you be to detour into a parking lot so they could hit the McD's drive thru for a $1 bottle of water, cutting into your overpriced margins? Wouldnt you be tempted to either outright say "No. This is my transport. Either buy my water or you get nothing." , or lie to the passenger? "Sorry, I heard they ran out of water" Or simply parking on the far side of the lot, making them get out and walk a long distance to get what they want from your competitor out of spite.

Because that is what was happening with some carriers. They would make life hell for their competition until they were forced to treat all traffic equal.

There's something like 470 pages in that bill, and all sorts of code.

Is it honestly safe to make such assumptions and assume the title of the bill actually will accomplish what it says it will? That's usually never the case with any bill.

Also explain to me why george soros is in support of NN, and why google is so heavily in support of it, as is facebook. Some of the biggest threats to our country.

 

[wtburnette]

There's something like 470 pages in that bill, and all sorts of code.

Is it honestly safe to make such assumptions and assume the title of the bill actually will accomplish what it says it will? That's usually never the case with any bill.

Also explain to me why george soros is in support of NN, and why google is so heavily in support of it, as is facebook. Some of the biggest threats to our country.

Don't know or care about Soros supporting NN, but the internet giants, well duh. Think about that one, because they operate on the internet. If you hand the ISP's the power to throttle, block or make deals against other companies, those internet giants stand to lose a lot of money. None of that is a reason to not want NN. NN says that ISP's must treat all data the same. No blocking, throttling or paid prioritization is allowed. That's the basic premise. So if you're in support of doing away with NN, you're saying you're fine with ISP's being able to block or throttle certain sites or services and that they can do paid prioritization deals. None of that is a benefit to the consumer and none of that is a benefit for any company except the ones that ISP's prefer and do business with. Now, with NN any site can become popular because the site/service can get to every eyeball paying for internet service at the full speed that's possible. Without NN, if that site/service isn't paying the ISP for a sweetheart deal, their site service could be throttled to where visiting the site is too slow for consumers to want to spend time on, or blocked altogether. Anything that competes with what ISP's already offer is threatened. New startups would be at a disadvantage. But that's okay because at least we wouldn't have the idiots in the .gov trying to fix things...

 

[HoughMade]

#1- Mandate ISPs allow any ISP to lease their physical distribution system (so-called "last mile") at market rates.
#2- End net neutrality.

Goodbye monopolies. Hello internet choice.

 

[jamil]

Short of a system where the ownership of the lines connecting to your house is separate from the content/service providers I'm not sure we can get there. But think of it. If any company could lease the lines in any community, then Spectrum, Comcast, ATT, and everyone else, would have to compete head to head for your subscriptions. If one provider throttled stuff you like, there could be plenty of providers who don't. With everyone having to compete in the same space with the same rules, Ethos would then matter a lot more than it does now. Spectrum can **** everyone as hard as they want, and since for many of us, they're the only provider, you either take the ****ing to get internet, or you leave it and you don't.

#1- Mandate ISPs allow any ISP to lease their physical distribution system (so-called "last mile") at market rates.
#2- End net neutrality.

Goodbye monopolies. Hello internet choice.

Concise. Obviously I have to work on my brevity. And you didn't even need any **** to mask words INGO thinks are naughty.

 

[wtburnette]

#1- Mandate ISPs allow any ISP to lease their physical distribution system (so-called "last mile") at market rates.
#2- End net neutrality.

Goodbye monopolies. Hello internet choice.

If that was passed through the legislative process prior to NN being ended, I would completely agree. Unfortunately, that's not what's being done.