FCC votes to kill net neutrality rules

[driftdiver]

It's not intruding into any individual person's life. It's intruding into corporations (who are not people) to make sure THEY don't intrude into our lives.

These corporations are worse then the govt.  They have no real responsibility and its next to impossible for an individual to hold them responsible.  You're only option is to turn off the internet or go to another company that does the same thing.

They aren't operating as a free market.  Most of them are run by people with a global mindset and are a virtual monopoly.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

For the same reasons having the government make roads open to everyone is a benefit to everyone.

The telecom companies do nothing for the consumer, their only interest is making money.   Not in a free market way but in a monopolistic way.

So if they don't like content they will now make it harder for people to see it.   Political, economic, religious views they don't like can be made to disappear.

Do you watch amazon or netflix?   Well now they'll be able to charge you more to connect to those services.  But their video streaming services won't be?

The list is endless but what we'll end up with is higher costs and lower levels of service. Not to mention the impact on access to non-PC information.

Roads around here are garbage and congested. Bad analogy if you want to be pro-nn.

[driftdiver]

Roads around here are garbage and congested. Bad analogy if you want to be pro-nn.

I hear its because of the crappy drivers.

[Frank Cannon]

It's not intruding into any individual person's life. It's intruding into corporations (who are not people) to make sure THEY don't intrude into our lives.

Everyone of your complaints boils down to one thing: You are a bitter poor person living in a nowheresville shithole. If you are so upset with not getting the type of internet service you think you are "owed" either move to a real place or find your wallet and get a satellite internet service. Ever hear of Hughesnet?

[Emjay]

The benefits of electing Trump continue to accrue. ^-^ 

They do.  I like most of what he is doing.  He's definitely rolling back some horrible Obama mandates.

[Frank Cannon]

Roads around here are garbage and congested. Bad analogy if you want to be pro-nn.

I also don't know how you can equate internet service to a Round A Bout.

[driftdiver]

Everyone of your complaints boils down to one thing: You are a bitter poor person living in a nowheresville shithole. If you are so upset with not getting the type of internet service you think you are "owed" either move to a real place or find your wallet and get a satellite internet service. Ever hear of Hughesnet?

@Frank Cannon
Man some people are just nasty good for nothings

[Frank Cannon]

@Frank Cannon
Man some people are just nasty good for nothings

Some people don't like hearing the truth. Read through all those complaints he had about Net Neutrality being shuttered and tell me you don't see a common denominator.

[txradioguy]

@txradioguy
I don't have a wish except to go back to where the internet is the same for everyone.  Where the telco's cannot mess with your traffic and have to treat all users the same.

So you're in favor then too I guess of all airlines being forced to provide only one level of seating for all fliers because to provide business class and first class isn't fair to those that can't afford to upgrade their seat.

I mean after all you want it the "same for everyone" right?

This change doesn't keep the govt out of our internet.  If anything it give them more power to control what we see.  It will facilitate the technology to control delivery of information on a per user basis.   This is Chinas wet dream.

No "neutrality" is their and apparently your wet dream.  You're fear mongering and completely ignoring the facts from within the actual regulation that I posted earlier.

As it stands the federal govt has access to every email, every website, every phone call, every text message you make.  All real time and without a warrant.  This change allows them to do away with users, website, and information they don't like.

Really?  Care to show me where int he regulation it says that.

As it stands you're supporting the ability of the Federal government to control what you see and how fast you're able to see what they allow...shut down websites (like this one) if it's of a political genre they don't like and limit and restrict your ability to search the web.

Wonderful.

[Frank Cannon]

So you're in favor then too I guess of all airlines being forced to provide only one level of seating for all fliers because to provide business class and first class isn't fair to those that can't afford to upgrade their seat.

I mean after all you want it the "same for everyone" right?

This right here is what this all boils down to.

[WingNot]

@Frank Cannon
Man some people are just nasty good for nothings

Frank tells it like it is.  No sugar coating bullshit. No fluff.   Just the facts Jack.

[ABX]

[Frank Cannon]

Frank tells it like it is.  No sugar coating bullshit. No fluff.   Just the facts Jack.

Not into facts jacks. More of a waffle guy.

[Sanguine]

Not into facts jacks. More of a waffle guy.

Sorry, Frank, waffle you are not.

[WingNot]

Not into facts jacks. More of a waffle guy.

Don't want to start a flap but waffles just don't stack up to cakes.

[Suppressed]

Some things to consider about net "neutrality" that are in the legislation that was just repealed.

The plan repeatedly states that it is only deferring a decision on new broadband taxes (such as Universal Service Fund fees and Telecommunications Relay Service fees, among others)—not prohibiting them. And it takes pains to make clear that nothing in the draft is intended to foreclose future state or federal tax increases. Indeed, the plan engages in the same two-step we saw last year with respect to the E-Rate program: Lay the groundwork to increase taxes in the first order, and then raise them in the second. One independent estimate puts the price tag of these and other fees at $11 billion.

The plan allows class-action lawsuits—with attorneys’ fees—should any trial lawyer want to challenge an Internet service provider’s network management practices or rates. Indeed, the plan expressly declines to forbear from sections 206 and 207 of the Act, which authorize such private rights of action. And it adopts a theory of broadband subscriber access services—that is, services that broadband providers supply to edge providers—that would allow anyone online to file a complaint or go to court. The end result will be more litigation and less  innovation.

The plan expressly states that usage-based pricing, data allowances—really, any offers other than an unlimited, all-you-can-eat data plan—are now subject to regulation. Indeed, the plan finds that these practices will be subject to case-by-case review under the plan’s new “Internet conduct” standard. That standard evaluates at least seven vaguely defined factors in determining whether a practice is allowed. The plan makes clear that these practices are now on the chopping block, with those of mobile operators under special scrutiny. This means that consumers who use less data may end up subsidizing consumers who use more data. Moreover, the President’s plan goes out of its way to say that sponsored-data plans and zero-rating programs, like T-Mobile’s Music Freedom offering, may violate the new standard for Internet conduct. Preventing companies from differentiating themselves from the competition by giving consumers a wide variety of options will mean less choice and less free data for consumers. If you like your current service plan, you should be able to keep your current service plan. The FCC shouldn’t take it away from you.

The plan clearly states that the FCC can regulate the rates that Internet  service providers charge for broadband Internet access, for interconnection, for transit—in short, for the core aspects of Internet services. To be sure, the plan says that the FCC will not engage in what it calls ex ante rate regulation. But this only means that the FCC won’t set rates ahead of time. The plan repeatedly states that the FCC will apply sections 201 and 202 of the Communications Act, including their rate regulation provisions, to determine whether the prices charged by broadband providers are “unjust or unreasonable.” The plan also repeatedly invites complaints about section 201 and 202 violations from end-users and edge providers alike. Thus, for the first time, the FCC would claim the power to declare broadband Internet rates and charges unreasonable after the fact. Indeed, the only limit on the FCC’s discretion to regulate rates is its own determination of whether rates are “just and reasonable,” which isn’t much of a restriction at all.

The plan goes out of its way to reiterate its view that competition is limited. And it uses the FCC’s new 25 Mbps yardstick for broadband to claim that competition doesn’t exist for a majority of Americans.

This press release was from before it was passed in 2015.  Did any/all of those terrible things come to pass?

[INVAR]

It's not intruding into any individual person's life. It's intruding into corporations (who are not people) to make sure THEY don't intrude into our lives.

So you're good with government intruding into our lives when we own or run a business.

Control business, and you got an 'Ism which eventually comes down to government control over the individual.

Interesting how many on "our side" are perfectly happy with that.

No wonder the era of Big Government is just beginning.

[Emjay]

That is exactly how I see it too. Not winning and not a benefit.

@jpsb and @driftdiver

Okay, I'm something of a dummy about this but I always disagree with you two, so I'm gonna guess that this is a very good thing.

[jmyrlefuller]

So you're good with government intruding into our lives when we own or run a business.

So you're good with corporations intruding into our lives and not having anyone stop it. Come to think of it, government is a corporation in which all citizens share a stake--and the one from which all other corporations get their existence and liability protections. You are fine with stopping THAT corporate meddling in our lives. But other corporations can?

[driftdiver]

@jpsb and @driftdiver

Okay, I'm something of a dummy about this but I always disagree with you two, so I'm gonna guess that this is a very good thing.

@Emjay
Welcome to the light.  :)

Seriously though I've worked in telecom, and have them as customers now.   They budget for a certain amount of customer "churn" or loss.   They reduce customer service spending until they have that budgeted loss.   Actually delivering what they sell or promise isn't a factor.  Its only did the customer get so pissed off they left or not.

These companies are looking at their business model.   Verizon sold off a bunch of their datacenters because of the cost.  They bought companies like yahoo.  They are doing this because providing access requires a lot of $$$.   Controlling information (aka google) doesn't.

Google makes HUGE money and they do it through marketing and controlling what you see on the internet.  To date they've done it through their search engine.   telecoms think they can have more control because they also control the access.  More control = more money in their minds. 

[The_Reader_David]

Winning!

For people who want ISP's to be able to direct traffic on the internet, censor content, and the like, sure.

You do realize that the top execs at all tech companies and media companies, Verizon, AT&T and Comcast included are all left-leaning on social policy.

[dfwgator]

For people who want ISP's to be able to direct traffic on the internet, censor content, and the like, sure.

You do realize that the top execs at all tech companies and media companies, Verizon, AT&T and Comcast included are all left-leaning on social policy.

Gee, how did we ever survive before Obama came along with "Net Neutrality"......(and "Affordable Health Care" for that matter).

[driftdiver]

So you're good with government intruding into our lives when we own or run a business.

Control business, and you got an 'Ism which eventually comes down to government control over the individual.

Interesting how many on "our side" are perfectly happy with that.

No wonder the era of Big Government is just beginning.

@INVAR
I run a business.  I guarantee the govt is all over my business and effects things I do every single day.   This is about the govt allowing virtual monopolies the power to determine whether your business can be seen by customers.   It means allowing them to takes sites like this  one and preventing people from seeing it.

[driftdiver]

Gee, how did we ever survive before Obama came along with "Net Neutrality"......(and "Affordable Health Care" for that matter).

Hyperbole much?

[Frank Cannon]

So you're good with corporations intruding into our lives and not having anyone stop it. Come to think of it, government is a corporation in which all citizens share a stake--and the one from which all other corporations get their existence and liability protections. You are fine with stopping THAT corporate meddling in our lives. But other corporations can?

Where are you in this pic?