The FCC just KILLED Net Neutrality

[Tech Enthusiast]

Amerika really does not even try to mask the corruption, does it?

 

Honestly,... this one guy said he is doing it FOR THE PEOPLE and that not having a free internet is BETTER for them. 

Not like Trump would be any different, but really guys,...

 

... how can you tolerate corruption this easily and not go out and put those people out of their positions? The whole US system is based around corruption to even get elected. You need that big fat money and the big companies give it to them. OBVIOUSLY without wanting and favor back after election. Everyone believes that!

 

Really, seeing this from afar is mind blowingly crazy. I just can't believe a system that calls itself a democracy is working like that. There is like no democracy in all of that, just bribery.

[Jon Jon]

12 hours ago, mr moose said:

Repealing a law because companies didn't abide by it is not a great foundation for any society.  If NN didn't curb ISP behaviour then the ISP's need to be held to account,  Not allowed to just keep going then get given a free pass.  This would be further evidence that the US is not a democracy but a corporate dictatorship.

To be completely fair though, I hate how people talk about America being a democracy.

We are a republic.

 

To be honest, understanding that answers a lot of peoples' frustrations associated with how laws get enacted, repealed, etc. in this country.

 

It's why I state that the issues of access to information need to be put in place into our constitution, since in a republic, the constitution protects the "minority" from the "majority". The majority technically being the people elected into power.

 

Issues like limiting access to information can then be disputed at the legal level.

 

However, people complaining about Netflix getting throttled in certain regions of the country (more than likely where bandwidth isn't plentiful) need to understand that bandwidth isn't free and the people that manage IT infrastructure do not come cheap. Just like with electricity, gas, and water, you pay more for what you consume. It's up to Netflix (and other content providers) to negotiate the rates associated with how much bandwidth their traffic can leverage. I remember there being a dispute between Netflix and Comcast years passed, which resulted in data throttling due to them being unable to strike a deal.

 

People need to understand that these resources aren't infinite, and that there are operational costs associated.

 

Otherwise, the logic behind net neutrality should be dictated everywhere, so we all get to pay the same amount of money for electricity, gas, water (any service that connects our homes to a shared grid) and the companies associated just have to figure out how to support that, regardless of usage.

 

To take it even further, then theoretically, paying for different bandwidth tiers should also be considered "fast lanes" as you are not getting new medium connected to your house to support the different speeds. You should be limited by the physical media chosen to connect your house, just like in your home and connections to your router.

 

We need to view these things from a less "foaming at the mouth" perspective, and more of a logical and knowledgeable one.

 

I am not saying that you are, but these are the questions and topics I never see anyone discussing. It's more of "bandwagon me too" mentality arguments with no logical or factual basis.

 

How do we reduce costs associated with managing these networks? How do we get broadband access to all Americans?

 

Unless someone can cite otherwise, NN has NOT gotten broadband to more regions of the country, but neither has its lack of existence. Maybe it's time that we treated the internet like we do water, gas, and electricity and have programs instilled that get this access to everyone at an affordable rate, you know, real MAGA type stuff. These topics I haven't seen discussed in a productive way, and these are our real problems.

[Spenser1337]

7 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

I know @LinusTech

And @Slick

 

Usually don't cover political topics on the WAN show and i fully understand why they dont too but i really hope that Linus goes fucking ham on this on today's show and i really hope he tells everyone why NN was a good thing and why repealing it was a bad thing.

 

I don't believe people are defending this or that people genuinely believe that the corporation's won't exploit every little thing in their power to milk every customer dry.

 

Why exactly would Trump push so hard for this to happen if no one wanted to make use of it?

 

The entire reason this was implemented was because some ISPs were starting to throttle traffic they didn't like and charging extra for the privilege of unthrottling it, it literally was happening already. You think they pushed SOOO hard to kill NN so they could not start doing it again?

Can you source where trump pushed for the repeal of nn?

[Spenser1337]

Direct quote from the new bill: 
No throttling. FCC release, p.83

Many of the largest ISPs (Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, Cox, Frontier, etc.) have committed in this proceeding not to block or throttle legal content.507 These commitments can be enforced by the FTC under Section 5, protecting consumers without imposing public-utility regulation on ISPs

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, Jon Jon said:

However, people complaining about Netflix getting throttled in certain regions of the country (more than likely where bandwidth isn't plentiful) need to understand that bandwidth isn't free and the people that manage IT infrastructure do not come cheap. Just like with electricity, gas, and water, you pay more for what you consume. It's up to Netflix (and other content providers) to negotiate the rates associated with how much bandwidth their traffic can leverage. I remember there being a dispute between Netflix and Comcast years passed, which resulted in data throttling due to them being unable to strike a deal.

 

People need to understand that these resources aren't infinite, and that there are operational costs associated

Isn't this exactly why we consumers/businesses pay for different bandwidth tiers already? (And different data caps/allowances in some cases) I don't see why the consumer or the business should have to have pay for additional plans to avoid throttling based on content when they are already paying for a set bandwidth and cap.

[Spenser1337]

4 minutes ago, tjcater said:

Isn't this exactly why we consumers/businesses pay for different bandwidth tiers already? (And different data caps/allowances in some cases) I don't see why the consumer or the business should have to have pay for additional plans to avoid throttling based on content when they are already paying for a set bandwidth and cap.

 

18 minutes ago, Spenser1337 said:

Direct quote from the new bill: 
No throttling. FCC release, p.83

Many of the largest ISPs (Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, Cox, Frontier, etc.) have committed in this proceeding not to block or throttle legal content.507 These commitments can be enforced by the FTC under Section 5, protecting consumers without imposing public-utility regulation on ISPs

 

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, Spenser1337 said:

Direct quote from the new bill: 
No throttling. FCC release, p.83

Many of the largest ISPs (Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, Cox, Frontier, etc.) have committed in this proceeding not to block or throttle legal content.507 These commitments can be enforced by the FTC under Section 5, protecting consumers without imposing public-utility regulation on ISPs

What bill is this?

[lobster_zoidberg]

12 minutes ago, tjcater said:

What bill is this?

https://www.scribd.com/document/365201684/FCC-order-repealing-net-neutrality#fullscreen&from_embed

 

Bet nobody here had any idea they could actually read it (including the parts banning throttling and blocking)

[System Error Message]

 

From google as a joke. Show this in the WAN show as a joke lol.

[paddy-stone]

4 minutes ago, anthonyjc2010 said:

I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to be rude or degrading; I was just a bit pissed when I wrote it and I targeted some of my frustration in your direction.

No worries, I can understand you being annoyed at what happened.. I feel it too and am not even directly affected by it at the moment.

 

[Spenser1337]

17 minutes ago, tjcater said:

What bill is this?

https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db1122/DOC-347927A1.pdf

[TheCherryKing]

5 hours ago, Sypran said:

Maybe not on the corner of the internet you view.
You know the whole concept of Rule 34? In my experience whatever causes that rule to be true applies to more concepts. If there is a bad idea out there, someone will think its a good idea, and will defend it.
Ive read serious people trying to argue how lead in food is a good thing, and why we should use more asbestos.

- Fun Fact: Asbestos is still used in the USA while most other countries have banned it for use in construction. Reason why it isn't banned here? It cost too much and only save 200 lives a year according to the 5th Circuit Court in 1991.

Those topics are not relevant to net neutrality. Besides even though asbestos is unsafe to breathe in it is very effective for fireproofing. Lead on food on the other hand has no arguments supporting it. 

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, lobster_zoidberg said:

https://www.scribd.com/document/365201684/FCC-order-repealing-net-neutrality#fullscreen&from_embed

 

Bet nobody here had any idea they could actually read it (including the parts banning throttling and blocking)

 

21 minutes ago, Spenser1337 said:

https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db1122/DOC-347927A1.pdf

That's all nice and I would be supportive of this, but how much of the perceived/feared possibilities can be prevented under "deceptive acts or practices"? From what I've read, the FTC takes a "wait and see" approach to preventing these actions.

Edited December 15, 2017 by Guest
. -> ?

[lobster_zoidberg]

I'm sure most of the people have simply been scared by things like this image: 

Which despite what you no doubt read, it isn't micro-transactions to access services - its actually offering heavily discounted data to access those specific services. 

[dfsdfgfkjsefoiqzemnd]

2 hours ago, Jon Jon said:

However, people complaining about Netflix getting throttled in certain regions of the country (more than likely where bandwidth isn't plentiful) need to understand that bandwidth isn't free and the people that manage IT infrastructure do not come cheap. Just like with electricity, gas, and water, you pay more for what you consume. It's up to Netflix (and other content providers) to negotiate the rates associated with how much bandwidth their traffic can leverage. I remember there being a dispute between Netflix and Comcast years passed, which resulted in data throttling due to them being unable to strike a deal.

 

The whole Netflix throttling thing had nothing to do with bandwidth, it was all about people choosing Netflix over Comcast's own streaming service and the lost revenue from that.  The fact that the throttling stopped literally the day that they struck a deal is plenty of evidence that the bandwidth existed and they only had to flip the proverbial switch.  Unless you choose to believe that they did massive upgrades to their whole infrastructure in the course of an afternoon.

 

As for bandwidth not being plentiful, since the early 1990s ISPs have received roughly $400 BILLION in exchange for upgrading their infrastructure to fiber (all the way to people's homes) and making that fiber available to competitors.  If lack of bandwidth or lack of competition is an issue anywhere nowadays, it's because they pocketed the money without actually living up to their part of the deal.

 

 

[linustouchtips]

this is the worst gift ive ever received

[GDRRiley]

17 hours ago, lilbman said:

Net neutrality isn't the only solution to that though.  Say a Comcast user is also a Netflix subscriber but Comcast is throttling the speeds for Netflix.  That Comcast user can stop using Comcast and go to a service that offers what the consumer wants.  This would likely happen on a large enough scale, which would force Comcast to change unless they want to lose business.

 

I'd rather have the ISPs be in control of the internet over the government because as a consumer, we can push a company in the right direction by taking business away from them, but with the government, we can't because the people in the FCC are not elected officials.  

 

Remember: the purpose of a company is to make money, and if you want to make money, you have to be selling a product that the consumer wants.

 

In a truly free market, it is hard for a monopoly to survive for a long period of time because it's extremely difficult to keep up with.

 

I mean, look at Standard Oil. Before monopoly laws even existed, they had monopolized the oil market.  By the time the government passed anti-monopoly legislation, Standard Oil had already lost a very very large part of its market share because it couldn't maintain its death grip on the market.

50% of the US only has 1 choice, and we only 3 or 4 main ISPs across the country with 3% having more than 2 option.

[GDRRiley]

11 hours ago, mr moose said:

Your government begs to differ:

 

https://www.state.gov/j/drl/democ/

 

we are a constitutional republic as stated by @tjcater.

We love to call our self one but we aren't

[asus killer]

2 hours ago, lobster_zoidberg said:

I'm sure most of the people have simply been scared by things like this image: 

Which despite what you no doubt read, it isn't micro-transactions to access services - its actually offering heavily discounted data to access those specific services. 

oh no, not this again. And you all wonder why the US is in this state *facepalm*

 

That is for mobile phone internet only. And it's just something you can get if you prefer, but in parallel you have on that ISP the traditional way of getting internet for your phone, a monthly fee and you get the 1GB or more or less and even have most of those most used app not counting for the cap.

 

I get people not speaking/reading Portuguese, but come on

[GDRRiley]

2 hours ago, Captain Chaos said:

 

The whole Netflix throttling thing had nothing to do with bandwidth, it was all about people choosing Netflix over Comcast's own streaming service and the lost revenue from that.  The fact that the throttling stopped literally the day that they struck a deal is plenty of evidence that the bandwidth existed and they only had to flip the proverbial switch.  Unless you choose to believe that they did massive upgrades to their whole infrastructure in the course of an afternoon

Netflix even installed servers in most ISPs local offices that have most of Netflix's content so that its only the local network. 

[asus killer]

to all the US internet suffers, i can sell internet by the pound. Shipped by snail mail on 3.5 inch diskettes. Porn included. PM'me for prices.

 

 

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, asus killer said:

to all the US internet suffers, i can sell internet by the pound. Shipped by snail mail on 3.5 inch diskettes. Porn included. PM'me for prices.

 

 

You use snail mail?!?! Its time you upgrade your infrastructure to IPoAC.

[Hellion]

The saddest part about this entire mess is the lack of any real action that took place by those opposing the change. 

 

Since when had crying on the internet ever forced a major change in government?

 

Amurica, land of the free. Am I doing it right?

[TheCherryKing]

Just now, Hellion said:

The saddest part about this entire mess is the lack of any real action that took place by those opposing the change. 

 

Since when had crying on the internet ever forced a major change in government?

 

Amurica, land of the free. Am I doing it right?

The folks crying on the internet are one of the following groups:

1. Basement dwellers

2. Misinformed kids that believe everything the tech YouTubers say

3. People that are genuinely concerned about data throttling

[Suika]

I entered this thread expecting more legitimate arguments and discussion as to why repealing NN is a good thing, and have been greatly disappointed.

 

1) NN hasn't been doing anything, so repealing it won't change anything.

 

Sure, but if it wasn't doing anything, then why bother spending so much time and effort to repeal it and not replace it with proper legislation? I don't see the argument here at all.

 

2) ISPs can more easily invest in new infrastructure.

 

Except NN didn't prevent investments at all. ISPs reported that NN didn't affect their ability to invest in new and improved infrastructure, nothing changed between 2014 and 2016, this argument is completely moot.

 

3) The internet was fine before NN, the internet will be fine without it.

 

This sounds more like you're willing to gamble the fate of the internet than it does confidence that issues won't happen at all. There are way too many Americans with no other options for service providers that a company like Comcast can impose restrictions on Netflix traffic and sell their own service to customers with little to no repercussions. NN at the least served as the idea that no, this is not OK, consumers and businesses deserve better.