FCC votes to kill net neutrality rules

[goodwithagun]

How dare you sully the good name of Wingnut by comparing his name with that low rent fellow.

Maybe Wingnut is @WineNot ?

[Restored]

I just don't find any compelling arguments where getting rid of this is good for consumers. That's my problem with it.

Have you ever been on DSL? Your line speed is determined by the amount of traffic in the wire. If all your neighbors are watching Netflix, speed suffers.
In reality, Net Neutrality doesn't exist. I have faster internet that you can't use and I have free access in hundreds of campuses all over the country which you can't have. Your phone company can limit your speeds and amount of data on the internet.

[INVAR]

The telco's are starting to figure it out which is why this is an issue now.  They want to control your access to information on the web.  They certainly aren't going to be fair about it.  Its been explained many times but its a complicated subject that few non-technical people can really understand.

While this is true, I don't want Government involved in creating 'fairness'.  The government is the Mob, and in 'creating fairness' government will decide what is fair, based on how big a cut it is able to get via lobbying dollars and/or taxation in sticking its mitts in the running of the internet.

I'll trust the private market before I'll trust the government picking winners and losers in order to create the mythical land of 'fairness'.

[mountaineer]

 Chuck Schumer‏Verified account @SenSchumer
If #NetNeutrality is eliminated, the Internet may start to resemble a toll road, with the highest bidders cruising along private “fast lanes” while the rest of us inch along a single, traffic-choked public lane.
10:44 AM - 14 Dec 2017 from Washington, DC


  Nantucket Antifa‏ @nantucketantifa
22h22 hours ago
Nantucket Antifa Retweeted Chuck Schumer
When you Tweet faster than you think.


Kris Dill‏ @kroberts08
Dec 14
Replying to @SenSchumer
“The rest of us”. Sorry bud, but politicians aren’t the rest of us. You are an elitist parading around as if you know struggle. How blind can people be?

 michael bott‏ @michael_mbott
Dec 14
Replying to @SenSchumer
So what you're saying is you're going to get rid of NY state thruway tolls so we can all drive for free on the fast lanes.


 

[INVAR]

I would like to remind everyone what happened when the government got their hands in solved in regulating Cable TV rates back in the 90s in order to make pricing 'fair' for everyone.

Cable rates nearly tripled as a result of government sticking its fingers in the pie.

Why would we expect any less with them using net neutrality to stick their fingers in the internet to make it 'fair'???

[catfish1957]

Anytime the government gets its hands on ANYTHING, it gets F'ed up.

[Sanguine]

I would like to remind everyone what happened when the government got their hands in solved in regulating Cable TV rates back in the 90s in order to make pricing 'fair' for everyone.

Cable rates nearly tripled as a result of government sticking its fingers in the pie.

Why would we expect any less with them using net neutrality to stick their fingers in the internet to make it 'fair'???

Yes, but they've been doing a great job with medicine and medical insurance, right?

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

@To-Whose-Benefit?
Oh your sweet simple solution is so special and useless. The govt just made it legal so its not anti-trust.

Besides how would you prove it?  You don't have access into the systems of the telco's and if you did it would be like finding a needle in a mountain of needles.

These telcos spend a lot of money on their politicians and lobbyists and once again they have got what they wanted.

So Anti-Trust is off the table now?

Why Net Neutralty Was Mistaken From The Beginning (AOL Edition)

http://reason.com/blog/2017/11/26/why-net-neutrality-was-mistaken-from-the

"Pai's FCC would still insist on transparency from ISPs and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) would be able to investigate anti-competitive practices by ISPs (Pai says that the FTC is actually better suited to this sort of role than the FCC, which is open to question)."

I rather enjoyed the graphic in this next one.

Pro Net Neutrality Graphic Makes Argument Against Net Neutrality

http://reason.com/blog/2017/11/22/pro-net-neutrality-graphic-makes-argumen

7 Reasons Net Neutrality Is Idiotic

https://www.dailywire.com/news/18613/7-reasons-net-neutrality-idiotic-aaron-bandler

Here's What Getting Rid of Net Neutrality Will Do To Netflix

http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/14/heres-what-getting-rid-of-net-neutrality-will-do-to-netflix/

“The 2015 rules were designed to protect Google and Facebook from competition from ISP platforms for Internet ad sales; this action makes that market more competitive,” says Bennett. “In recent months, Google and Facebook have sold 100% of the Internet’s new ads, and that’s not a desirable situation.” (RELATED: Opinion: Net Neutrality Is A Sham That Protects Silicon Valley Robber Barons)

The Case Against Net Neutrality, An IT Pros Perspective

https://betanews.com/2017/12/14/the-case-against-net-neutrality-an-it-pros-perspective/

"The unfortunate truth is: many real world examples of "bad behavior" by big players just don't exist. I tried to find as concise of a list that was published online quantifying all of the known incidents which Net Neutrality would have "prevented" and one of the best ones is provided by Free Press. They seem to be clearly in the pro-Net Neutrality camp and the best they could document was an unflattering list of... wait for it... 12 incidents."

https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history

[Frank Cannon]

 michael bott‏ @michael_mbott
Dec 14
Replying to @SenSchumer
So what you're saying is you're going to get rid of NY state thruway tolls so we can all drive for free on the fast lanes.


 

LOL. Hilarious. Eff you Chucky.

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

I would like to remind everyone what happened when the government got their hands in solved in regulating Cable TV rates back in the 90s in order to make pricing 'fair' for everyone.

Cable rates nearly tripled as a result of government sticking its fingers in the pie.

Why would we expect any less with them using net neutrality to stick their fingers in the internet to make it 'fair'???

@INVAR

Every time Govt requisitions itself another hammer, everything within reach becomes a nail.

[txradioguy]

Thank you for this, Tx. I did not know any of this. Figures the media would lie about it.

Well we shouldn't expect anything close to truth or accuracy from the MSM...you've got CNN out there proclaiming "The End of the Internet" because of the roll back of NN.  They WANT net "neutrality".

[INVAR]

Every time Govt requisitions itself another hammer, everything within reach becomes a nail.

Needed repeating in bold, because I continue to be amazed at the numbers of self-identifying "Conservatives" who somehow forget that truth and WANT government to become a hammer for whatever nails they want pounded down.

[jmyrlefuller]

@To-Whose-Benefit?
Ignorant is a horrible way to go through life.   Netflix is an only example.   

What we're talking about is about 10 companies in the US now having the power to determine who gets to play on the internet.  There are more ISPs than that but about 10 serve most of the people, and in any one geographic area there are maybe 3 companies that control access.

There is no real competition simply because the entry cost into the market is too high.  On top of these companies there are even fewer companies that actually have the backbone of the internet.   They sell to the companies that sell to homes.

So these few companies, that have been providing your information to the federal govt without a warrant, now have the legal ability to control what you see on the internet.   So if during the next election they decide they don't like a particular candidate they can block access to that information.

Its about control of information, not bandwidth.  It sure isn't about being fair or neutral.

If I may, I'll also note this:

From the dawn of the World Wide Web in the early-to-mid-1990s to about ten years ago, the main form of Internet access was the dial-up ISP. At its peak, there were dozens of them: you just dialed into the phone number, and badabing. Internet, at the glorious speed of 56 kilobits per second. Since phone companies were already net-neutral (common carrier), net neutrality wasn't an issue, and there was competition if it ever became one.

Today's model is totally different. High-speed Internet is controlled by the same companies that control the lines (vertical integration). If you choose to use cable lines to get Internet access, you have to get it through the cable company, and under franchise agreements, they usually have a local monopoly. The 2015 rule classified these as common carriers, affording the same protections to them as dial-up users. Now that classification is gone.

[INVAR]

Its about control of information, not bandwidth.  It sure isn't about being fair or neutral.

Government has no ability to establish fairness or neutrality. 

It's involvement in any capacity will foster the exact opposite of what you assume it will be used for.

When exactly did Conservatives suddenly decide Big Government was an asset and a tool??? 

[jmyrlefuller]

I would like to remind everyone what happened when the government got their hands in solved in regulating Cable TV rates back in the 90s in order to make pricing 'fair' for everyone.

Cable rates nearly tripled as a result of government sticking its fingers in the pie.

Why would we expect any less with them using net neutrality to stick their fingers in the internet to make it 'fair'???

Non sequitur.

Cable rates did not triple because of government regulation. In 1992, your typical cable provider had no more than 20 channels. By the end of the millennium, it was up to 40, and a few years later almost everyone was providing 60 or more, each demanding a cut of your cable bill (one that, in a few cases such as ESPN, they keep demanding to increase dramatically). The satellite companies, who could provide 100 or more channels, put pressure on cable companies to offer more and more  That's what caused cable rates to spike.

If there's a local cable company in your area, you can still get that limited 20-channel suite for about the same rate as you could before. That's what the government regulated. The difference is that all those channels that have been added since the 1990s are on unregulated tiers that people keep buying—because nobody wants cable service that only offers you the local channels you can already pick up on an antenna, home shopping, infomercials, crooked televangelists and C-SPAN.

The only part of that regulation that drove up costs was the retransmission consent rule: any broadcast station (local channel) could demand payment from a cable company for being carried on their systems.

[txradioguy]

If you choose to use cable lines to get Internet access, you have to get it through the cable company, and under franchise agreements, they usually have a local monopoly.

I live in a town that is approx. 22,000 people.  In that town I have the choice of 4 different internet providers...including the local Telco.

 

[Suppressed]

Why would we expect any less with them using net neutrality to stick their fingers in the internet to make it 'fair'???

They already had instituted Net Neutrality.  Rates didn't triple.

This was about removing Net Neutrality.  Do you think rates will plummet to a third of what they are?

I don't think your argument holds water.

[jmyrlefuller]

I live in a town that is approx. 22,000 people.  In that town I have the choice of 4 different internet providers...including the local Telco.

 

I think there is one city of that size within a 40-mile radius of where I live. In that city and its suburbs, they have two choices: cable, or phone company. Everyone else has one. There are quite a few swaths that have none at all because the cable companies don't serve them. The government tried to subsidize this "WiMax" service that was supposed to start providing wireless high-speed around here years ago, but it's been mired in delays and excuses ("well, we WERE going to start putting up the equipment but it was going to go out of date so we HAVE to start over, but we promise, the service will be even better!") and I don't think it ever launched.

Either way, my point is that this isn't like the 1990s, when common carrier was assured and there was actual competition. Now, who controls the wires controls the flow of information through them.

[driftdiver]

I live in a town that is approx. 22,000 people.  In that town I have the choice of 4 different internet providers...including the local Telco.

 

Here in Tampa we have 3 main companies.

Frontier for $250 a month
Timewarner/Spectrum for $250 a month
Dish for about $200 a month and have it go out everytime it rains, which in Tampa is every day in the summer.

Great competition there, but its not just about bandwidth.  Its about access to the information on the Internet.   Until about 2014 Google was  the only company that  really understood this concept.  Today the telecom companies are catching on now and they want to be able to control what information you access.

They wiil do this by directing traffic based on who you are and what you are looking for.   They do it with cell phones and the cable box now by  listening to the background noise and adjusting content based on the words used.  If you talk about vacations to Mexico you'll start seeing more ads on Cancun.  With this change they can also redirect your web search to only show you vacation packages from their approved vendors.

So much for a free market.

[INVAR]

Non sequitur.

Cable rates did not triple because of government regulation.

Right.  We didn't cancel cable because the rates skyrocketed into the stratosphere with worse service and choices AFTER the government promised their actions would lower everyone's rates. 

I killed our cable because they added too many channels????

Forgive me if my memory is not the same as yours as to when and why everyone began bitching about the rocketship launch of cable rates AFTER the government got their fingers in the pie.

[txradioguy]

Its about access to the information on the Internet.   Until about 2014 Google was  the only company that  really understood this concept.  Today the telecom companies are catching on now and they want to be able to control what information you access.

They wiil do this by directing traffic based on who you are and what you are looking for.   They do it with cell phones and the cable box now by  listening to the background noise and adjusting content based on the words used.  If you talk about vacations to Mexico you'll start seeing more ads on Cancun.  With this change they can also redirect your web search to only show you vacation packages from their approved vendors.

WTH do you think the Government will do to your internet if you get your wish?  Seriously how can you sit there and advocate for Big Brother...more government intrusion into your life like it's a good thing?

Did you not see the details of what's in the NN laws...and what the Government has planned if NN is ever (God forbid) is reinstated?

[INVAR]

They already had instituted Net Neutrality.  Rates didn't triple.

This was about removing Net Neutrality.  Do you think rates will plummet to a third of what they are?

I don't think your argument holds water.

Neither does any argument that says handing government power to impose regulations on the free market will lower rates.

But hey - Big Government is all in these days in everyone's minds.

Enjoy your Beast. 

[driftdiver]

WTH do you think the Government will do to your internet if you get your wish?  Seriously how can you sit there and advocate for Big Brother...more government intrusion into your life like it's a good thing?

Did you not see the details of what's in the NN laws...and what the Government has planned if NN is ever (God forbid) is reinstated?

@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.

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.

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.

[jmyrlefuller]

WTH do you think the Government will do to your internet if you get your wish?  Seriously how can you sit there and advocate for Big Brother...more government intrusion into your life like it's a good thing?

Did you not see the details of what's in the NN laws...and what the Government has planned if NN is ever (God forbid) is reinstated?

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.

[Restored]

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.

You realize we volunteer to buy the internet product from the corporations, right? We invite them to intrude into our lives. We pay them them to intrude into our lives.