FCC Unveils Plan To Repeal Net Neutrality Rules

[The Jewel of the Nile]

I live in Poland and as with most of East Europe, we don't have any kind of net neutrality-like regulations, yet, or, more precisely, thanks to that internet prices are getting lower and lower for most of the consumers, while for some people with very specific needs prices are rising. Net Neutrality is giving more power to the government, which is not a good solution. In Poland, we have seen communism, which is ultimate form of government power over citizen, with our own eyes, and we can recognize some patterns in the west. Poland is not most capitalistic countries, but we see the difference and it is really huge. Some parts of economy are still almost socialistic, i.e. healthcare, thanks to that we can recognize how terrible healthcare in Canada is, but I know people in Canada are not able to see why is it happening, they still think that it's just a matter of choosing right people to be governed by. Well, the problem is that people who govern you do not have strong enough incentives to act in your favor. Actually, they have their own agenda and it's true that sometimes it aligns with some of the people, but even under communism some people were happy with it in Poland, because they were better off. It's fundamental asymetry behind rule of power. Those in power should not be granted more power for sure, even though they will do everything to trick us that they are working in our service. Granting more power to government to ensure fair competition is a fallacy, because only thing government will do is creating illusion of choice with artificial competition among lobbyist, and then serving lobbyist by setting laws and rules that make it more difficult for real competition to win.The other part of problem, more technical and complex, is lack of ability to allocate resources so peoples needs are  satisfied under socialism or any other centrally planned regimes. It's economically impossible to allocate something that is scarce, like healthcare, food, shoes, or internet traffic processing power with one simple, centrally planned rule. People are very different, have very different needs, different ideas and solutions, they sometimes can't even manifest that by saying it loud, but they can do so by choosing right product on the market.

[TheCherryKing]

36 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Did you even read the links? The source is literally Verizon themselves saying it. 

 

By "unbiased" do you by any chance mean "a source that doesn't disagree with me"? Because that would be a source that's factually wrong.

 

You might as well be asking for sources that water is wet, and only sources which has not made their mind up on the subject are allowed. 

 

By the way, you still haven't answered my questions. 

I have answered your questions many times. By "unbiased" I mean a source that doesn't agree with anybody. I am not going to risk getting banned over arguing with you anymore.

[TheCherryKing]

36 minutes ago, wkdpaul said:

I would recommend that you read read the articles instead of dismissing them because of their title or sources. Those articles contain informations and actual facts, verifiable facts don't change, regardless of the news organisation ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I can understand that I shouldn't dismiss certain sources but fake news is everywhere these days! 

[Zando_]

1 minute ago, TheCherryKing said:

I can understand that I shouldn't dismiss certain sources but fake news is everywhere these days! 

1. How do you know it's fake? 

2. And you're dismissing those articles while saying you know you shouldn't just dismiss them and then using fake news as an excuse. 

[TheCherryKing]

2 minutes ago, Zando Bob said:

1. How do you know it's fake? 

2. And you're dismissing those articles while saying you know you shouldn't just dismiss them and then using fake news as an excuse. 

1. There is no way of being sure that it is fake but there is also no way of being sure it's true. The media only writes what they want people to hear. 

2. It wasn't that best excuse but those articles are discussing something completely unknown at this time. The best thing to do is see what happens when net neutrality is repealed instead of making assumptions and spreading propaganda. Yes, Verizon admitted they broke the law but assuming that all ISP's will throttle more is just speculation. 

[RollTime]

On 11/21/2017 at 5:40 PM, TimeOmnivore said:

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.

I totally agree. The idea that competition will cause the providers to not be assholes is shortsighted, in my opinion. I can see a "star alliance" of ISPs like ATT and Verizon, banding together and monopolizing the net in order to give customers no choice about their shitty plans.

[RollTime]

36 minutes ago, The Jewel of the Nile said:

I live in Poland and as with most of East Europe, we don't have any kind of net neutrality-like regulations, yet, or, more precisely, thanks to that internet prices are getting lower and lower for most of the consumers, while for some people with very specific needs prices are rising. Net Neutrality is giving more power to the government, which is not a good solution. In Poland, we have seen communism, which is ultimate form of government power over citizen, with our own eyes, and we can recognize some patterns in the west. Poland is not most capitalistic countries, but we see the difference and it is really huge. Some parts of economy are still almost socialistic, i.e. healthcare, thanks to that we can recognize how terrible healthcare in Canada is, but I know people in Canada are not able to see why is it happening, they still think that it's just a matter of choosing right people to be governed by. Well, the problem is that people who govern you do not have strong enough incentives to act in your favor. Actually, they have their own agenda and it's true that sometimes it aligns with some of the people, but even under communism some people were happy with it in Poland, because they were better off. It's fundamental asymetry behind rule of power. Those in power should not be granted more power for sure, even though they will do everything to trick us that they are working in our service. Granting more power to government to ensure fair competition is a fallacy, because only thing government will do is creating illusion of choice with artificial competition among lobbyist, and then serving lobbyist by setting laws and rules that make it more difficult for real competition to win.The other part of problem, more technical and complex, is lack of ability to allocate resources so peoples needs are  satisfied under socialism or any other centrally planned regimes. It's economically impossible to allocate something that is scarce, like healthcare, food, shoes, or internet traffic processing power with one simple, centrally planned rule. People are very different, have very different needs, different ideas and solutions, they sometimes can't even manifest that by saying it loud, but they can do so by choosing right product on the market.

I'm totally with you on minimal regulations. However, I think that, in this case, Net Neutrality is a very good thing. The thing about free markets is that they encourage competition between a lot of companies- leading to lower prices and better quality. Great. However, with ISPs it's different. To be an ISP you have to have complex infrastructure and cables to serve data to customers. As such, there aren't nearly as many ISPs as there are power companies, for example (in Texas, where I live, all electricity goes over the same cables but can come from any company). So the existing ISPs could easily establish crappy rules without fear of someone undercutting them and giving customers a better choice.

 

Perhaps, we could establish a system to power companies, where providers must share their networks? This would lead to a lot more competition. 

[TheCherryKing]

Let's not beat around the bush! Where are these topics going? It is very clear that there are many people to both extremes that are not willing to give in and never will. I'm all for free speech even it disagrees with my views. I may have been "uncivilized" but other have too! 

[vanished]

6 minutes ago, TheCherryKing said:

Let's not beat around the bush! Where are these topics going? It is very clear that there are many people to both extremes that are not willing to give in and never will. I'm all for free speech even it disagrees with my views. I may have been "uncivilized" but other have too! 

You're right, I suspect no one on either side is going to change their mind regardless of where the discussion goes

[Lurick]

22 minutes ago, RollTime said:

I totally agree. The idea that competition will cause the providers to not be assholes is shortsighted, in my opinion. I can see a "star alliance" of ISPs like ATT and Verizon, banding together and monopolizing the net in order to give customers no choice about their shitty plans.

It's not too far off already. They already have unspoken agreements not to enter each others territories whenever possible and in many places are writing the laws for the politicians to just pass without reading.

[RollTime]

1 minute ago, Lurick said:

It's not too far off already. They already have unspoken agreements not to enter each others territories whenever possible and in many places are writing the laws for the politicians to just pass without reading.

Thanks for the info.

[Tiberiusisgame]

Imagine how long it would take to download a AAA title on Steam if that bandwidth were throttled. I grew up on dialup, but at least then my games were on physical media and the patches were small. If that doesn't upset you...

[The Benjamins]

6 minutes ago, Tiberiusisgame said:

Imagine how long it would take to download a AAA title on Steam if that bandwidth were throttled. I grew up on dialup, but at least then my games were on physical media and the patches were small. If that doesn't upset you...

I tyied to back up my 16TB NAS to amazon cloud. it took 2-3 months to get 6TB transfered, and then amazon changed to a tiered package over unlimited. so now I give up on a off site backup. my 13Mbps upload is to slow.

[Tiberiusisgame]

1 minute ago, The Benjamins said:

I tyied to back up my 16TB NAS to amazon cloud. it took 2-3 months to get 6TB transfered, and then amazon changed to a tiered package over unlimited. so now I give up on a off site backup. my 13Mbps upload is to slow.

With that much data, they provide a service where you ship a drive to them physically.

[The Benjamins]

4 minutes ago, Tiberiusisgame said:

With that much data, they provide a service where you ship a drive to them physically.

ya, but I want a cheap service. most of the data is not that important. I will just rely on the RAID 10.

[Tiberiusisgame]

1 minute ago, The Benjamins said:

ya, but I want a cheap service. most of the data is not that important. I will just rely on the RAID 10.

I'm sorry, I'm not following you. If the data isn't important, why back it up to the cloud? And what does RAID have to do with getting your data to the cloud provider? I must have missed that hour of AWS training ;-)

 

Didn't mean to hijack this thread. Folks, don't give up on voicing your opinions just because you can't convince others. Just remember not to take offense when others disagree. I think that's what is intended by civil discourse. We're discussing access to resources and information, which is very important, but not life threatening. If we were discussing euthanasia as a form of elderly care, I'd urge more passion!

Edited December 1, 2017 by Tiberiusisgame
I hijacked the thread

[The Benjamins]

4 minutes ago, Tiberiusisgame said:

I'm sorry, I'm not following you. If the data isn't important, why back it up to the cloud? And what does RAID have to do with getting your data to the cloud provider? I must have missed that hour of AWS training ;-)

 

Didn't mean to hijack this thread. Folks, don't give up on voicing your opinions just because you can't convince others. Just remember not to take offense when others disagree. I think that's what is intended by civil discourse. We're discussing access to resources and information, which is very important, but not life threatening. If we were discussing euthanasia as a form of elderly care, I'd urge more passion!

It would be nice to have it backed up, but not required so I don't want to spend a lot of money on it. the mention of the raid is that I do have built in redundancy in case of drive failure. so I will be unlikely I would ever need a backup.

 

but I would like to be able to get a upload speed of 50-100 Mbps at least.

[Tiberiusisgame]

Just now, The Benjamins said:

It would be nice to have it backed up, but not required so I don't want to spend a lot of money on it. the mention of the raid is that I do have built in redundancy in case of drive failure. so I will be unlikely I would ever need a backup.

 

but I would like to be able to get a upload speed of 50-100 Mbps at least.

Ah, I see. Yeah, I don't know if speeds are related to infrastructure or just how the companies manage their regions/Return-On-Investment because I pay the same as a buddy of mine way up north of me and he gets 250Gb/s up and down. I currently have 50 up and down. We both pay ~$60/mo., we're both on Verizon FiOS and both have fiber all the way to the house; no conversion to a non-digital network.

 

I'm sure this plays into the argument being made about how competition of these ISPs doesn't really exist and how they can provide different services in different regions for the same cost. I don't mind my speeds but I don't like hearing that someone is getting a better deal ;-)

[The Benjamins]

2 minutes ago, Tiberiusisgame said:

Ah, I see. Yeah, I don't know if speeds are related to infrastructure or just how the companies manage their regions/Return-On-Investment because I pay the same as a buddy of mine way up north of me and he gets 250Gb/s up and down. I currently have 50 up and down. We both pay ~$60/mo., we're both on Verizon FiOS and both have fiber all the way to the house; no conversion to a non-digital network.

 

I'm sure this plays into the argument being made about how competition of these ISPs doesn't really exist and how they can provide different services in different regions for the same cost. I don't mind my speeds but I don't like hearing that someone is getting a better deal ;-)

well in the build I rent from I can only get Comcast or verizon BUT Comcast offers 250/13 vs Verizon DSL of 30/5. I wish I could get verizon Fios of 100/100 or 200/200, but I can't.

[Tiberiusisgame]

Just now, The Benjamins said:

well in the build I rent from I can only get Comcast or verizon BUT Comcast offers 250/13 vs Verizon DSL of 30/5. I wish I could get verizon Fios of 100/100 or 200/200, but I can't.

This is interesting, and has been a problem everywhere I've lived (in the US). At my last place, the company had a deal with Comcast. No Verizon available and we weren't allowed satellites on the deck. At our new place, the builder told us that Comcast never showed up to lay copper, so our only option is Verizon. Also regulations against satellites and the city is too small for city-wide cellular bandwidth.

 

I wonder if this issue is common everywhere?

[Bit_Guardian]

1 hour ago, TheCherryKing said:

I can understand that I shouldn't dismiss certain sources but fake news is everywhere these days! 

Fake news...

 

Open testimony in a court of law...

 

WOOOW!!!

[Bit_Guardian]

50 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

You're right, I suspect no one on either side is going to change their mind regardless of where the discussion goes

I'd be perfectly willing to, but there's absolutely no compelling evidence I've seen showing that repealing NN is in any way a good thing under the current state of competition and localised monopolies and the previous behaviours they've resorted to.

[Mike Soda]

12 hours ago, Mike Soda said:

Please watch this & share it if you haven't already, plus encourage anyone who can CBA to contact whoever. If you disagree I can't say I understand, but I will always respect the varying opinions of others. If this has been posted on the forums already I'm sorry & would appreciate a forum mod deleting it if necessary.

 

Thanks to whoever for merging my topic with this one.

[piemadd]

Since the internet providers wanting to repeal net neutrality have 50 out of the 100 senators, Mike Pence will need to break the vote. Currently, Mike Pence wants Net Neutrality to stay, so the repeal can't go through.

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, Bit_Guardian said:

I'd be perfectly willing to, but there's absolutely no compelling evidence I've seen showing that repealing NN is in any way a good thing under the current state of competition and localised monopolies and the previous behaviours they've resorted to.

My first thought is that the US probably hasn't experienced NN or any consumer laws being properly enforced in a while. It seems regardless of them companies like comcast and verizon will still crew everyone over.