F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules... Thanks Trump.

[helltoupee]

but that didn't happen prior to 2015 or whenever net neutrality began so why will it be different? I'm not an expert on any of this but I am typically not in favor of regulation (not a fan of big government or government intervention overall....obviously not in all cases but in many). My internet worked fine (cost, speed, access, etc) pre-net neutrality. All the hyperbole about this makes me skeptical. Maybe it is because I am philosophically libertarian (but pragmatically it doesn't work for everything imo)

There is a reason the telecom corp's have spent so much money to get NN repealed.

They don't throw millions of dollars to politicians/lobbyists unless they are angling for increases to their bottom line. In essence, ISPs want to create custom toll roads based on an analysis of your net traffic. You want to watch netflix? It may be a different price, or require a different package, than, let's say, using Sherdog.

They will know everything you do, and charge you according to their relationship with the domains you are visiting. ISPs will now have the ability to do things such as block peer to peer services, streaming websites, even stuff like Amazon video, if they feel it is allowing people to 'cut the cord' and not pay for their cable services.

Think about it like this. Imagine if Comcast owns shares in Vimeo, therefore Youtube is their direct competition. Without NN, Comcast now can outright block your access to Youtube, make it painfully slow so you don't want to use it, charge you a premium for accessing it, or charge Youtube for being able to deliver to you.

 

[Andy Capp]

If HD streaming wasn't a thing then net neutrality would be a non-issue..

This is a ridiculously simple minded and short sighted statement, and it's wholly untrue. It affects everyone, right down to grandpaw who just wants to be able to skype with the grandkids.

 

[ShoelessRye]

Schumer will use CRA to have a Congressional vote on FCC Net Neutrality Repeal -

US Senate Minority LeaderChuck Schumer(D-N.Y.) said he will force a vote on a bill that would reinstate the Federal Communications Commission's net neutrality rules.

Legislation to reverse the repeal "doesn’t need the support of the majority leader," Schumer said during a press conference Friday,according toThe Hill. "We can bring it to the floor and force a vote. So, there will be a vote to repeal the rule that the FCC passed."

The Federal Communications Commissionvoted to repealits own net neutrality rules last week, and the repeal will take effect 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. But Congress can overturn agency actions by invoking the Congressional Review Act (CRA), as it did earlier this year in order toeliminate consumer broadband privacy protections. [...]

"It's in our power to do that and that's the beauty of the CRA rule," Schumer said. "Sometimes we don't like them, when they used it to repeal some of the pro-environmental regulations, but now we can use the CRA to our benefit, and we intend to."
​

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...ote-to-reinstate-net-neutrality-schumer-says/

So Republicans can run, but won't be able to hide from their vote on this matter. Let's see where each and every politician votes on this - Republican and Democrat.

And if it should pass, Trump could veto it I believe. Than Trump would own it completely. I don't think this would get near a veto proof majority in either House or Senate. I think it could pass in the Senate, but would be a healvy lift in the House. It will be interesting to see if Ryan whips against it in the House to protect Trump from having to veto it.

 

[SammyPops]

Trudeau best not fuck up my p0rn surfing and thats all I know.

 

[N13]

Verizon is thinking that this new monopoly will help them corner the market, but Satellite internet providers will seize the opportunity and kill it.

Don't worry, the market forces always win out. The greedy losers will pay in more ways than one.

 

[Falsedawn]

So huge dominating company's like Google, YouTube and Facebook censor right leaning material and it's "bro they are a private company they can do what they like, if you don't like it use a different company"

But now ISP's like Comcast, Cox might want to charge Netflix more for all that bandwidth they take without paying the difference of usage and it's "This is evil we need the government to save our $$$"

Weird logic, the only thing I am concerned about is if all the ISP's team up and roll out some sorry prices and policies but I would imagine they would get sued for that.

Because of Net Neutrality, all the banned alt right people had the freedom to go create their own platform, which would be treated the same as every other platform out there. Now, if Cox or Comcast finds them "not worth the hassle", they could throttle all traffic to those platforms, effectively scraping them off the web entirely.

Your little bit of spite has a significant chance of blowing up in your face, and you didn't even know it. Well done.

 

[Damien Karras]

Trudeau best not fuck up my p0rn surfing and thats all I know.

Canada has no plan to repeal NN.....for now

 

[Ruprecht]

Verizon is thinking that this new monopoly will help them corner the market, but Satellite internet providers will seize the opportunity and kill it.

Don't worry, the market forces always win out. The greedy losers will pay in more ways than one.

Those market forces may not go the direction you're after. It's not a free market, and the barriers to entry are high. Have you read about the hundreds of billions your ISPs ripped off consumers for "innovation" and fiber cabling they never provided?

 

[N13]

Those market forces may not go the direction you're after. It's not a free market, and the barriers to entry are high. Have you read about the hundreds of billions your ISPs ripped off consumers for "innovation" and fiber cabling they never provided?

I'm on my side, and this is inconsequential to what is going on right now as far as I'm concerned. The barriers to entry? There are a number of satellite internet providers right now. All they have to do is offer something better than Verizon and the other fools, advertise it, and life goes on.

As far as the money, what is new? The top shelf black hats are always exploiting the rest of us as best they can. This is just standard operating procedures. Maybe some Justice would be a good thing to toss into the gumbo.

On the fiber cabling, it has been good for me because fios and Verizon are not available here. No changes in my little market.

 

[Ruprecht]

I'm on my side, and this is inconsequential to what is going on right now as far as I'm concerned. The barriers to entry? There are a number of satellite internet providers right now. All they have to do is offer something better than Verizon and the other fools, advertise it, and life goes on.

As far as the money, what is new? The top shelf black hats are always exploiting the rest of us as best they can. This is just standard operating procedures. Maybe some Justice would be a good thing to toss into the gumbo.

On the fiber cabling, it has been good for me because fios and Verizon are not available here. No changes in my little market.

Anywhere with even moderate population density, satellite can't compete with fiber (even allowing for the future potential of near earth orbit satellites that Musk would like to see). The barriers to entry are the state regulations covering the laying of that cable, and the cost of doing so. The threat of Verizon, Comcast etc goes beyond this though, in terms of their massive vertical integration of both service provision and commercial content provision. A lack of net neutrality allows them to bolster that by offering their own content without download penalty or speed restrictions. This will create a further barrier to entry (bolstering their market domination) which threatens to balkanise internet content in a manner patterned on cable TV provision. This has already happened with mobile data plans both in the US and abroad.

 

[N13]

Anywhere with even moderate population density, satellite can't compete with fiber (even allowing for the future potential of near earth orbit satellites that Musk would like to see). The barriers to entry are the state regulations covering the laying of that cable, and the cost of doing so. The threat of Verizon, Comcast etc goes beyond this though, in terms of their massive vertical integration of both service provision and commercial content provision. A lack of net neutrality allows them to bolster that by offering their own content without download penalty or speed restrictions. This will create a further barrier to entry (bolstering their market domination) which threatens to balkanise internet content in a manner patterned on cable TV provision. This has already happened with mobile data plans both in the US and abroad.

I see. That is a problem.

Good thing I only use a tracphone ($9/month and I never use up all the minutes. I have over 5000 carry over now). lol That new fangled ball and chain is fo the boids.

All in all, it seems to depend on a given person's level of affliction with this technology. The only thing that really matters to me is that I see all of these phone muffs walking around with a minimal connection to the real world (but they go nuts about not connecting to the Big Machine directly into their brains) and I know that they are all suffering from various kinds of brain damage (and the dudes are doing shit to their nutsack by choice!).

You are a good man Ruprecht. You got this angle covered. I'm going to waltz back into my world of t e h crayzel.

 

[Pinyin]

 

[ChainFlow]

Comcast/Verizon/etc's envy of Facebook and Google's ad business and content creation is what this is ultimately all about.

They even made explicit comparisons and whining about how it's not fair that Facebook/twitter/google "get" to moderate content on their platforms but ISPs don't.

Well that's because the argument is a big slimy lie because the ISPs don't actually own any platforms, they own a telecommunications service that lets people talk to actual social and content platforms. The experience of me making a post on Facebook or a video on Youtube (or consuming either) is not different if I do it on a Comcast cable line or a Google Fiber line or an internet line in London. Because they're just telecommunications.

They want a big slice of that $$ pie that Facebook/Google/etc have cooked up through actual innovation, and they want it not by offering competing services, but by demanding $$ for the privilege of flowing over their lines (even though consumers have already paid for that very service once!). Lines that were subsidized by the billions by taxpayers. And they only reason they think they can get away with it is because they refuse to compete against each other.

It's pure oligopolistic rent-seeking.

Edit:
Just to add to that, if I don't like Facebook but I want to use Twitter, I can do that! If I don't like YouTube but I still want to watch Netflix, I can do that!

But most Americans can't pick a different broadband internet provider.

 

[Pickle Rick]

This guy shuts down Ben Shapiro HARD on net neutrality

 

[Stoic1]

The only real question on the subject:

HOW WILL THIS AFFECT MY PORN VIEWING?

(seriously)

(no. really)

 

[foxnoob]

Google fiber would be all over the country if telecom infrastructure was a free market. It's not.

There's a huge reason why every city had 6 or more ISP's during dial-up of the late 90's and all those cities got reduced to 1 cable provider. We had the freedom to use our phone lines for whatever purpose we desired, we do not have the freedom to use our cable lines. Small companies can't come in and piggy back off those cable lines to provide a competing service. The cable companies have used political leverage to protect their infrastructure and turn themselves into utility monopolies. Google with it's infinite billions can't even budge this market into allowing it to compete.

This is not going to be solved by the free market because the market isn't free. Satellite isn't a real option just like going backwards to dial-up isn't a real option. You can't expect the consumer to go so far backwards technologically with drastically inferior services. That is not a real choice.

 

[MeatheadMike]

Are you required to use Facebook to use the internet?
No

Are you required to use an ISP to use the internet?
Yes

See the problem?

 

[method115]

Google fiber would be all over the country if telecom infrastructure was a free market. It's not.

There's a huge reason why every city had 6 or more ISP's during dial-up of the late 90's and all those cities got reduced to 1 cable provider. We had the freedom to use our phone lines for whatever purpose we desired, we do not have the freedom to use our cable lines. Small companies can't come in and piggy back off those cable lines to provide a competing service. The cable companies have used political leverage to protect their infrastructure and turn themselves into utility monopolies. Google with it's infinite billions can't even budge this market into allowing it to compete.

This is not going to be solved by the free market because the market isn't free. Satellite isn't a real option just like going backwards to dial-up isn't a real option. You can't expect the consumer to go so far backwards technologically with drastically inferior services. That is not a real choice.

Yea I knew it was a monopoly when Google couldn't even get shit done.

 

[44nutman]

Are you required to use Facebook to use the internet?
No

Are you required to use an ISP to use the internet?
Yes

See the problem?

He is a Trump Knob Gobbler, which means he/she does not have logical reasoning.
Basically he waits for a Meme or Ben Shapiro to tell him/her what to believe.
The ironic part is @Pinyin , has probably shared multiple meme's on Facebook.

 

[Necromantic]

Those market forces may not go the direction you're after. It's not a free market, and the barriers to entry are high. Have you read about the hundreds of billions your ISPs ripped off consumers for "innovation" and fiber cabling they never provided?

Interesting you brought up "free market". Killing net neutrality is actually making it MORE of a free market. Trump removing regulations at record levels is also making it a more free market.

Definition
In economics, a free market is an idealized system in which the prices for goods and services are determined by the open market and consumers, in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other authority.

Also note it says "idealized system" which entails it does not exist in reality at all. So saying ISPs or anything else is not free market is kind of redundant.
Might as well say the winner of the Belmont stakes was not a unicorn.

The dems are going to look like fools when net neutrality does not do nearly the damage they claim it will. Crying wolf.