Another Chance to Weigh In on the FCC's Net Neutrality Repeal

[StunnerAlpha]

Quote

THEFederal Communications Commission is once again seeking comment on its repeal of its Obama-era net neutrality rules. But the new comment period isn't focused on the usual issues that underpin the net neutrality debate, such as blocking or throttling content. Instead, it will focus on less-noticed aspects of the agency's decision with regards to public safety and the agency's oversight of broadband internet providers.

Quote

The public notice of the comment period was announced quietly under the cryptic heading “Wireline Competition Bureau Seeks to Refresh Record in Restoring Internet Freedom and Lifeline Proceedings in Light of the D.C. Circuit's Mozilla Decision.”

Quote

...comments will add to the public record that the FCC will have to address as part of the case. You can file a comment through the agency's online comment system by using the proceeding number 17-108, or by paper following the instructions found in the FCC's public notice. The deadline is March 30.

Source

 

The FCC was ordered by the court to ask for public comments on if doing away with net neutrality helped or hurt consumers. However, the sneaky FCC silently opened up their site for comment and with COVID-19 news taking up most of the headlines this story hasn't received the attention it deserves.

 

Now more than ever with most people ordered to self isolate our reliance on the internet for work and play is more essential than ever before. We all must make our voices heard to demand that taking away net neutrality hurts the average American consumer. The deadline for public comment is March 30th, if you are a resident of the United States, please comment.

[SansVarnic]

45 minutes ago, StunnerAlpha said:

We all must make our voices heard to demand that taking away net neutrality hurts the average American consumer

Net-Neutrality was a farce. I hope you truly do not believe this.

The very thing that they are doing this under the radar this way proves so much that they continue to act independently to their own wishes instead of to the publics best interest.

 

The FCC did the wrong thing for the wrong reasons at the time and they were able to hide that well, not to mention it was not constitutionally legal. The repeal was in everyone's best interest. I am glad it was repealed before lasting effects took place. I wholeheartedly believe in a free web but this is not the way to go about it.  If you wish to know more on my position, I make it pretty clear in the original topics on this subject. The FCC does not have the means to create net-neutrality legally, this must be a Congressional bi-partisan move and must be done correctly.

 

Also... just to be clear, regulation is a double edged sword, its not so much careful what you wish for . . . it is careful how you wish for it.

The internet does not need regulation, its the companies that provide access to the internet that needs regulation.

Edited March 25, 2020 by SansVarnic

[LAwLz]

45 minutes ago, SansVarnic said:

Net-Neutrality was a farce. I hope you truly do not believe this.

The very thing that they are doing this under the radar this way proves so much that they continue to act independently to their own wishes instead of to the publics best interest.

 

The FCC did the wrong thing for the wrong reasons at the time and they were able to hide that well, not to mention it was not constitutionally legal. The repeal was in everyone's best interest. I am glad it was repealed before lasting effects took place. I wholeheartedly believe in a free web but this is not the way to go about it.  If you wish to know more on my position, I make it pretty clear in the original topics on this subject. The FCC does not have the means to create net-neutrality legally, this must be a Congressional bi-partisan move and must be done correctly.

 

Also... just to be clear, regulation is a double edged sword, its not so much careful what you wish for . . . it is careful how you wish for it.

The internet does not need regulation, its the companies that provide access to the internet that needs regulation.

I am not sure I understand your position. It seems like it's a lot of vague statements and lack specifics.

 

What were the "wrong things" and what was the "wrong reason"?

 

How was it in "everyone's best interest" to have it repealed? For example, how exactly was it in the best interest for my grandmother's friend who lives in the US to have net neutrality repealed? How did it benefit her exactly?

 

What do you think would be "the way to go about it"? And if you think things need to be done, why do you end your post by saying it shouldn't be regulated?

[SansVarnic]

22 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

 

I wasn't vague, I was pretty direct. reread what i posted.

22 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I am not sure I understand your position. It seems like it's a lot of vague statements and lack specifics.

What were the "wrong things" and what was the "wrong reason"?

How was it in "everyone's best interest" to have it repealed? For example, how exactly was it in the best interest for my grandmother's friend who lives in the US to have net neutrality repealed? How did it benefit her exactly?

Me: I wholeheartedly believe in a free web but this is not the way to go about it.  If you wish to know more on my position, I make it pretty clear in the original topics on this subject.

22 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

What do you think would be "the way to go about it"? And if you think things need to be done,

Me: The FCC does not have the means to create net-neutrality legally, this must be a Congressional bi-partisan move and must be done correctly.

22 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

why do you end your post by saying it shouldn't be regulated?

Me: The internet does not need regulation, its the companies that provide access to the internet that needs regulation.

Only congress can pass a bill to create a law to enforce this type of regulation not the FCC. The FCC cannot increase its scope of power without the consent of Congress. It is as simple as that.

Edited March 25, 2020 by SansVarnic

[Guest willies leg]

There's enough crap on both sides of this debate. Neither is good.

 

[LAwLz]

10 minutes ago, SansVarnic said:

I wasn't vague, I was pretty direct. reread what i posted.

I disagree. I think your post raised a lot of questions and offered no answers other than "look through my other posts", of which you have 6626.

 

 

10 minutes ago, SansVarnic said:

Me: The internet does not need regulation, its the companies that provide access to the internet that needs regulation.

But that was exactly what the rules that were revoked were... They were all strictly about what the ISP could and could not do.

Have you even read what the net neutrality rules were? If you have, can you cite the specific parts you do not agree with?

[SansVarnic]

10 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I disagree. I think your post raised a lot of questions and offered no answers other than "look through my other posts", of which you have 6626.

 

 

But that was exactly what the rules that were revoked were... They were all strictly about what the ISP could and could not do.

Only congress can pass a bill to create a law to enforce this type of regulation not the FCC. The FCC cannot increase its scope of power without the consent of Congress. It is as simple as that.

That pretty much sums up what I posted in the original topics on this subject.

 

10 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

offered no answers other than "look through my other posts", of which you have 6626.

I was specific on where to look, short of linking the topic myself.

*edit

I was fairly vocal about my position, look for Net Neutrality topics and I'm sure mine will be there as well.

Edited March 25, 2020 by SansVarnic

[LAwLz]

4 minutes ago, SansVarnic said:

Only congress can pass a bill to create a law to enforce this type of regulation not the FCC. The FCC cannot increase its scope of power without the consent of Congress. It is as simple as that.

That pretty much sums up what I posted in the original topics on this subject.

You're not answering my questions.

 

You said:

Quote

Me: The internet does not need regulation, its the companies that provide access to the internet that needs regulation.

 

That's exactly what the rules that were revoked were.

 

Let me question you this. It' clear that you do not agree with the way the rules were passed, we get that. But did you have any objection to the actual regulations that were passed? As in, were there anything about the actual text that you did not agree with? For example were there anything in the text of the rules that were passed that you would have liked changed?

[SansVarnic]

1 minute ago, LAwLz said:

You're not answering my questions.

 

You said:

 

That's exactly what the rules that were revoked were.

 

Let me question you this. It' clear that you do not agree with the way the rules were passed, we get that. But did you have any objection to the actual regulations that were passed? As in, were there anything about the actual text that you did not agree with? For example were there anything in the text of the rules that were passed that you would have liked changed?

Ill have to go back re-review the specifics to be honest. But if I remember there were a few I was against not because of what they were but how they were written, allowing room to apply regulation within the web later on, it was worded weirdly. I'll have to get back to you on that. What the FCC made public and what was in the actual regulations they instated did not match. Specifically I don't remember at this moment.

I will support it if its written in a manner that clearly defines that regulation is limited only to the IPs. Iirc there was a comment that had an outline of what should be in a bill (ill have to find it in the topic) that I agreed with. 

Quote

It' clear that you do not agree with the way the rules were passed, we get that

A lot people did not understand back (and even today) then what was wrong about how they were passed. And that is my stance here as well.

If the FCC wants to be involved, be involved in the writing of a bill instead of trying to re-instate the way they did it the last time.

But my main point is there is no reason to support Net-neutrality unless Congress is involved, from the start, other-wise we end up in another repeal battle.

[TetraSky]

What's the point of public comments when the FCC made it clear last time that they will ignore the public, claiming "it was just bots", anyway... 
 

Thankfully I live in Canada and we pretty much kept it because it makes sense to have it "just in case" shits starts going down, which they did in the US (Instead of relying on a pinkie promise of "we won't do it again").

Since ISPs have showed what they could do before, by throttling Netflix (lets not forget that) and essentially blackmailing Netflix to pay up if they wanted to go back to normal speeds.
They can give as many excuses as they want, just the fact that the moment they started to pay, speeds went back up, shows that something was extremely fishy and it clearly was throttling on their part.
 

There's no harm in having proper net neutrality in place, other than cutting a potential extra revenue stream for ISPs at the public's detriment...

[thechinchinsong]

3 hours ago, SansVarnic said:

Ill have to go back re-review the specifics to be honest. But if I remember there were a few I was against not because of what they were but how they were written, allowing room to apply regulation within the web later on, it was worded weirdly. I'll have to get back to you on that. What the FCC made public and what was in the actual regulations they instated did not match. Specifically I don't remember at this moment.

I will support it if its written in a manner that clearly defines that regulation is limited only to the IPs. Iirc there was a comment that had an outline of what should be in a bill (ill have to find it in the topic) that I agreed with. 

A lot people did not understand back (and even today) then what was wrong about how they were passed. And that is my stance here as well.

If the FCC wants to be involved, be involved in the writing of a bill instead of trying to re-instate the way they did it the last time.

But my main point is there is no reason to support Net-neutrality unless Congress is involved, from the start, other-wise we end up in another repeal battle.

So basically, you disapprove due to the letter of the law, not the spirit of it. The only reason that you don't support Net Neutrality is because of the way that they enforced/passed it. If they created the exact same regulations and enforcement, but passed it through congress, you wouldn't have a problem.

[Dash Lambda]

18 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

Reality check: the internet didn't end with the end of net neutrality, speeds were not fax-modem like, etc, etc. Why are people still discussing this? Better complain and get a regulation on data caps, minimum speed, etc.

If I recall correctly there were a few incidents, but yeah, the world hasn't ended. That's not really the point, though. We know for a fact that ISPs can't be trusted, and so we have to limit their freedom to ensure they won't screw us over. Extending their powers by getting rid of stuff like net neutrality just creates a time bomb without any benefit to consumers whatsoever.

 

I do agree that data caps and speeds are much more deserving of regulation right now. Data caps in particular -the only purpose that practice ever has is to extort more money from customers, and it places a ridiculous limitation on what they can reasonably do.

[Eaglerino]

Gotta admit, I haven't noticed a single difference from when it was enacted and when it wasn't. My ISP's been total garbage throughout all of it. I do remember them slapping us with data caps the day the FCC enacted net neutrality, and those haven't gone away.

[Inkz]

Regardless of the sides on this, it feel like this is being hidden under the global pandemic and I doubt the average American will even know about this or even file within time with such a short deadline. 

[Techstorm970]

I haven't noticed a single difference whatsoever.  When I read articles about what net neutrality was, it seemed vague to me and didn't seem like a big deal.  I didn't care if it was repealed or not.

[GDRRiley]

15 hours ago, SansVarnic said:

Only congress can pass a bill to create a law to enforce this type of regulation not the FCC. The FCC cannot increase its scope of power without the consent of Congress. It is as simple as that.

the FCC can regulate them like this as long as ISPs are in title 2. that was the result of a mid 2000s lawsuit. if they are title 1 the FCC has almost no control.

congress does need to do something but they got about 20 things they should do and 0 they are doing.'

11 hours ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

Reality check: the internet didn't end with the end of net neutrality, speeds were not fax-modem like, etc, etc. Why are people still discussing this? Better complain and get a regulation on data caps, minimum speed, etc.

the internet was never going to end. this is all about stopping ISP practices like forcing services to pay or throttling content.

data caps should fall off soon given everyone is lifting them and nothing is happening. it just proves they have never needed them despite the record levels of traffic.

[LAwLz]

To everyone saying "I didn't see a change", please remember that these kinds of regulations take time to come into effect, and net neutrality was repealed fairly quickly.

If net neutrality were to get approved again, it would take years before we consumers started noticing. Basically, it never had the chance to do any of the good it was mean to do.

 

Also, you might not have noticed any difference because companies like Netflix has basically been blackmailed and paid up fees to the ISPs to protect you as the consumer.

[Beerzerker]

21 hours ago, StunnerAlpha said:

Source

 

The FCC was ordered by the court to ask for public comments on if doing away with net neutrality helped or hurt consumers. However, the sneaky FCC silently opened up their site for comment and with COVID-19 news taking up most of the headlines this story hasn't received the attention it deserves.

 

Now more than ever with most people ordered to self isolate our reliance on the internet for work and play is more essential than ever before. We all must make our voices heard to demand that taking away net neutrality hurts the average American consumer. The deadline for public comment is March 30th, if you are a resident of the United States, please comment.

Any story to be told probrably would have been covered up by the Corona virus news as of late, it's all over the place.... Like the virus itself.

 

Claiming the FCC was being "Sneaky" just because they opened their site in the middle of all the virus reporting itself isn't fair or unbiased - That all depends on WHEN the order was given which equals how much time they had between that and the viral outbreak becoming such big news.

 

It's not a problem to be sure it receives proper attention but it also needs to be said in proper context as in factual/truthful - Not exaggerated to one side of the situation or I'd have to view alot of this as Pro Net Neutrality rhetoric.