Jump to content

FCC Unveils Plan To Repeal Net Neutrality Rules

Evanair

*Moderator notes*

After discussion, we decided to re-open this and other threads related to net neutrality since we feel it's an important discussion to have.

 

With that said, the rules haven't changed, political discussion, insults and personal attacks are prohibited, the threads will be heavily moderated so any violation will be met with stern warnings, if not suspension.

—————————————————————

 

 

*Original topic*

 

Today, Tuesday the 21st of 2017, the United States FCC announced their plan to repeal the "Net Neutrality" law that the Obama administration passed during the previous term in office.  

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/11/21/565682679/fcc-unveils-plan-to-repeal-net-neutrality-rules?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=2049

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/21/technology/fcc-net-neutrality.html

 

Statement from FCC:

Quote

“Under my proposal, the federal government will stop micromanaging the internet,” Mr. Pai [FCC Chairman] said in a statement. “Instead, the F.C.C. would simply require internet service providers to be transparent about their practices so that consumers can buy the service plan that’s best for them and entrepreneurs and other small businesses can have the technical information they need to innovate.”

One Side of Argument:

Quote

Big online companies like Amazon say that the telecom companies would be able to show favoritism to certain web services, by charging for accessing some sites but not others, or by slowing the connection speed to some sites. (Kang, New York Times)

Other Side of Argument:

Quote

Telecom and cable companies have long argued that the FCC's attempts to regulate privacy and Internet behavior put them on an unequal footing with other Internet companies that collect data on users, like Google and Netflix, which are only overseen by the FTC. (Selyukh, NPR)

 

Personally, I can see how both sides want to argue, it does make sense from their point of view.  However, within the U.S. I see a need for freedom on the internet without corporate or political influence. No matter what happens, this will not turn into the great firewall of china; it isn't government filtering. But at the same point, the amount of power each of these corporations have over the mindset of citizens, the power of information control is insane. Granted, that is a slipper slope fallacy, so I cannot stand by that argument as much as I'd like.  In the end, my thoughts are: Traffic is traffic, treat it all the same.

Edited by wkdpaul
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember when Ajit Pai was a good person?

 

Oh wait...

|PSU Tier List /80 Plus Efficiency| PSU stuff if you need it. 

My system: PCPartPicker || For Corsair support tag @Corsair Josephor @Corsair Nick || My 5MT Legacy GT Wagon ||

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, STRMfrmXMN said:

Remember when Ajit Pai was a good person?

 

Oh wait...

Remember when former lawyers from major players in the ISP space weren't hired on to oversee policy at the FCC?

 

Pepperidge farm remembers....

Current Network Layout:

Current Build Log/PC:

Prior Build Log/PC:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

This only benefits the large ISPs. No one else. In fact, it will actively fuck over the consumers. And the FCC's argument that "the market will decide" is total nonsense - how exactly is the market supposed to decide anything when many people only have access to one or two choices. That argument works for something like restaurants in a big city - if there are several dozen, yeah, the market can put the shitty ones out of business, as there's bound to be some good ones amongst the dozens. This line of thinking simply doesn't work with ISPs.

 

This morning, my dad wanted me to help him sort through all the different cable packages so he could figure out which one he should get for TV - I really don't want to see that happen for the internet as well. It likely won't happen immediately, but rather over the course of several years of increasing levels of bullshit (see:gaming industry). If this passes, I hope whoever runs the FCC next repeals this decision immediately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Adios, bunch of rules that did jack shit at the end of the day.

Come Bloody Angel

Break off your chains

And look what I've found in the dirt.

 

Pale battered body

Seems she was struggling

Something is wrong with this world.

 

Fierce Bloody Angel

The blood is on your hands

Why did you come to this world?

 

Everybody turns to dust.

 

Everybody turns to dust.

 

The blood is on your hands.

 

The blood is on your hands!

 

Pyo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please remember to keep the conversation on topic and do your best refrain from political discussion or argument.

 

COMMUNITY STANDARDS   |   TECH NEWS POSTING GUIDELINES   |   FORUM STAFF

LTT Folding Users Tips, Tricks and FAQ   |   F@H & BOINC Badge Request   |   F@H Contribution    My Rig   |   Project Steamroller

I am a Moderator, but I am fallible. Discuss or debate with me as you will but please do not argue with me as that will get us nowhere.

 

Spoiler

  

 

Character is like a Tree and Reputation like its Shadow. The Shadow is what we think of it; The Tree is the Real thing.  ~ Abraham Lincoln

Reputation is a Lifetime to create but seconds to destroy.

You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life.  ~ Winston Churchill

Docendo discimus - "to teach is to learn"

 

 CHRISTIAN MEMBER 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Evanair said:

In the end, my thoughts are: Traffic is traffic, treat it all the same.

That's all there is to it in my mind. With as much of a monopoly as they have in the industry right now, yea government oversight for now. I'd really rather things changed on the back end so they have more competition. Government oversight wouldn't be needed if new ISPs were allowed to flourish, but with the way things are now that's pretty much impossible.

 

And I haven't seen a shred of evidence that suggests Net Neutrality negatively impacts progress for ISPs. The only thing it prevents them from doing is turning the internet in cable tv.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, huilun02 said:

Where I live in my country that can barely be seen on the world map, there's 5 service providers that cover the whole country and offer cheap, uncapped, unthrottled, gigabit fiber. It really is alarming the fact that a big populous country like the US doesn't have many more options let alone major country-wide providers. Alas the people there seem to have regressed in intelligence and don't care about the country's big problems. Look at the streets its peaceful and all. Maybe they even like it this way?

The US gimps itself so much by allowing people to mistreat each other in the name of "Capitalism"

CPU - Ryzen 7 3700X | RAM - 64 GB DDR4 3200MHz | GPU - Nvidia GTX 1660 ti | MOBO -  MSI B550 Gaming Plus

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh no..... the FTC will once again be responsible for regulating anti-competitive ISP behavior, however will we manage. 

 

My house is only a few hundred yards from the local comcast plant and this week they finally agreed to extend service providing I fork over a not insignificant amount of thousands of dollars for the line. I've been trying to have this done for years while using satellite and cellular connections. For everyone with high speed internet don't forget those without and the role competition with private ISP investment make in improving service for all. Sanctioned monopolies are the problem.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a "Status Quo Ante" move. Though the Status Quo Ante isn't exactly great, it's better than the places either Google or Comcast wants to drag things. Along with most people repeating corporate propaganda. It's not a situation with a lot of winners, as it's been made nearly zero-sum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, M8bravo said:

Oh no..... the FTC will once again be responsible for regulating anti-competitive ISP behavior, however will we manage. 

 

My house is only a few hundred yards from the local comcast plant and this week they finally agreed to extend service providing I fork over a not insignificant amount of thousands of dollars for the line. I've been trying to have this done for years while using satellite and cellular connections. For everyone with high speed internet don't forget those without and the role competition with private ISP investment make in improving service for all. Sanctioned monopolies are the problem.

 

 

Sanctioned monopolies may be the problem but that's really completely unrelated to the FCC. Net neutrality is important precisely because nobody's repealing the sanctioned monopolies. Until such a time as there's changes in the laws to allow real competition, pulling net neutrality out from under people only serves to further stifle competition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait, so what about small sites like this one?

 

Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

This strive for corporate milking greed is disgusting. The ISPs want to sell you illusions and don't want to invest in expanding infrastructure yet want to earn more money. 

 

| Ryzen 7 7800X3D | AM5 B650 Aorus Elite AX | G.Skill Trident Z5 Neo RGB DDR5 32GB 6000MHz C30 | Sapphire PULSE Radeon RX 7900 XTX | Samsung 990 PRO 1TB with heatsink | Arctic Liquid Freezer II 360 | Seasonic Focus GX-850 | Lian Li Lanccool III | Mousepad: Skypad 3.0 XL / Zowie GTF-X | Mouse: Zowie S1-C | Keyboard: Corsair K63 Cherry MX red | Beyerdynamic MMX 300 (2nd Gen) | Acer XV272U | OS: Windows 11 |

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sniperfox47 said:

Sanctioned monopolies may be the problem but that's really completely unrelated to the FCC. Net neutrality is important precisely because nobody's repealing the sanctioned monopolies. Until such a time as there's changes in the laws to allow real competition, pulling net neutrality out from under people only serves to further stifle competition.

The internet we have now was developed and became great without net neutrality. Look back at the history or government regs in regards to tech, they are always a bottleneck and behind on almost everything. 

 

Need an example? 

"When AT&T wanted to start developing cellular in 1947, the FCC rejected the idea, believing that spectrum could be best used by other services that were not “in the nature of convenience or luxury.” This view – that this would be a niche service for a tiny user base – persisted well into the 1980s."

https://investorplace.com/2017/07/we-could-have-had-cell-phones-40-years-earlier-ggsyn/#.WhXHn0qnFaQ

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sniperfox47 said:

Sanctioned monopolies may be the problem but that's really completely unrelated to the FCC. Net neutrality is important precisely because nobody's repealing the sanctioned monopolies. Until such a time as there's changes in the laws to allow real competition, pulling net neutrality out from under people only serves to further stifle competition.

The solution to all the fear of ISP throttling is Google Fiber or equivalent.  With 1GB up/down there is no incentive to throttle. So we should be trying to get there instead of adding governmental overhead to protect against imagined fears and maintain the status quo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, M8bravo said:

The solution to all the fear of ISP throttling is Google Fiber or equivalent.  With 1GB up/down there is no incentive to throttle. So we should be trying to get there instead of adding governmental overhead to protect against imagined fears and maintain the status quo.

Except Google stopped rolling out Google Fiber because it had gotten to the point where the legal red tape from the big providers was making it impossible to expand, despite having Google's nigh limitless resources at hand.

 

You're proposing a fantasy land where true capitalistic theory actually works. Spoiler alert, it doesn't. There's a reason why consumer protection laws are in place that prevent people selling you phones that blow up or razors that slice your face open. And it gets even worse with a lack of competition which ISPs absoutely do not have at the moment. There is no competition in the space because they made every effort to suppress competition.

 

At the very least, until such a time as that changes there need to be consumer protections in place just like for other utilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are they doing it through loot boxes? Then they can simply get away with it, I guess.

 

1 hour ago, M8bravo said:

The solution to all the fear of ISP throttling is Google Fiber or equivalent.  With 1GB up/down there is no incentive to throttle. 

Yes, Ajit, there would still be incentives to throttle, the incentive of acting as a paywall (or rather toll collector) between content providers and content consumers.

It's not about limited bandwidth, it's about charging for preferential speeds, gimping the bandwidth of those who don't pay if necessary, regardless of available capacity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey just some info.

 

So the FCC chairmen thinks this:

That ISP should be a "free market'

Okay... Economics 101.... Barrier to entry in market.

When barrier to entry is so high, only massive companies can dare try to enter, that means it's NOT a free market.

It's called an oligopoly market.

Something we learn about in nearly every USA undergrad degree program.

As an oligopoly market, it's not possible to have enough providers for which customers can make the best economic choice so providers will be forced to give the most value to customers in order to stay in business. A true free market is say.. I open a lemonaid stand.. and you open a lemonaid stand.. and joe blow down the street opens a lemonade stand.. and customers can choose whichever lemonade stand they want... and if they're not happy with the selections.. they can easily open their own lemonade stand.

That's not possible with ISP service until technology DRAMATICALLY improves.. where you can connect to a LEC (look it up) Local Exchange Carrier and offer connections through your network into the LEC. And see how much it would cost you to connect to a LEC... it's VERY expensive. To make it make sense, you would need a sufficient amount of customers to make a profit and hope they all don't use a tremendous amount of bandwidth or you're screwed on quality of service you can provide.

 

Lastly, for this FCC chairman to have this point of view, I really think he needs to get investigated for corruption.

 

So what I did, I called as many as my congressmen and congresswoman and informed them of the above point and also asked them to investigate the FCC chairman for corruption.

My mining journey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, D Levy said:

(...)

You are making too much sense. Stop it.

Everyone knows "free market" means an oligopolistic retail sector in which you can simply pay supermarkets to prominently place your products and hide the competitiors' product in a dark corner, or outright not have them. Oh yeah, gotta love that competition. That Pay-to-win competition, that is.

 

Anyone trying to spin getting rid of net neutrality as a pro free market move should peregrinate to Adam Smith's grave and apologize a thousand times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Found this gem on Reddit:

Quote

The intent is to provide internet users with a sense of pride and accomplishment for purchasing access to different websites. As for cost, we selected initial values based upon data from your search history and other info from recently signed terms and conditions. Among other things, we're looking at average per-user internet traffic rates on a daily basis, and we'll be making constant adjustments to ensure that users have domain blocks that are compelling, rewarding, and of course attainable via small payment. We appreciate the candid feedback, and the passion the internet has put forth around the current topics here on Reddit, our forums and across numerous social media outlets. Your ISPs will continue to make changes and monitor your internet activity to update everyone as soon and as often as we can.

The sad thing is, it might become a reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, huilun02 said:

Where I live in my country that can barely be seen on the world map, there's 5 service providers that cover the whole country and offer cheap, uncapped, unthrottled, gigabit fiber. It really is alarming the fact that a big populous country like the US doesn't have many more options let alone major country-wide providers. Alas the people there seem to have regressed in intelligence and don't care about the country's big problems. Look at the streets its peaceful and all. Maybe they even like it this way?

I remember when mine had like 6 at once... Now we are stuck with 2 and one is tryingto buy the other but the owner is irish and hates english ppl lol

CPU: Intel i7 7700K | GPU: ROG Strix GTX 1080Ti | PSU: Seasonic X-1250 (faulty) | Memory: Corsair Vengeance RGB 3200Mhz 16GB | OS Drive: Western Digital Black NVMe 250GB | Game Drive(s): Samsung 970 Evo 500GB, Hitachi 7K3000 3TB 3.5" | Motherboard: Gigabyte Z270x Gaming 7 | Case: Fractal Design Define S (No Window and modded front Panel) | Monitor(s): Dell S2716DG G-Sync 144Hz, Acer R240HY 60Hz (Dead) | Keyboard: G.SKILL RIPJAWS KM780R MX | Mouse: Steelseries Sensei 310 (Striked out parts are sold or dead, awaiting zen2 parts)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Are they doing it through loot boxes? Then they can simply get away with it, I guess.

 

Yes, Ajit, there would still be incentives to throttle, the incentive of acting as a paywall (or rather toll collector) between content providers and content consumers.

It's not about limited bandwidth, it's about charging for preferential speeds, gimping the bandwidth of those who don't pay if necessary, regardless of available capacity.

If the bandwidth is available it only takes one isp offering unlimited everything to break that practice, Look at the progression of cellular data plans over the year. I'm typing this over a Verizon hotspot with an  unlimited data plan. Verizon did not want to offer unlimited data plans but competition forced them to. EA just tried to pull similar thing with starwars and look how long that lasted. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×