FCC Unveils Plan To Repeal Net Neutrality Rules

[Theminecraftaddict555]

Feel like internet censorship is going to get bigger and more real if this gets passed

[WkdPaul]

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.

 

This notification will also be left in the OP.

[TheCherryKing]

6 hours ago, wkdpaul said:

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.

 

This notification will also be left in the OP.

It's not possible to discuss net neutrality without getting political. 

[leadeater]

37 minutes ago, TheCherryKing said:

It's not possible to discuss net neutrality without getting political. 

Only pure political discussion is not allowed, that means if you are not talking about Net Neutrality then it is not on topic. I'm confident enough in people's ability to be able to distinguish between politically oriented discussion about a topic and a discussion about politics that has little or nothing to do with the topic, it is however easy to stray away from the topic while in discussion without noticing and that is what everyone needs to be mindful of. 

[Taf the Ghost]

2 hours ago, leadeater said:

Only pure political discussion is not allowed, that means if you are not talking about Net Neutrality then it is not on topic. I'm confident enough in people's ability to be able to distinguish between politically oriented discussion about a topic and a discussion about politics that has little or nothing to do with the topic, it is however easy to stray away from the topic while in discussion without noticing and that is what everyone needs to be mindful of. 

I'd be generally confident in normal people being able to discuss the topic. However, the Paid Shill brigades have shown up everywhere to try to force a propaganda line on NN and completely confused the discussion. There has been millions paid by different groups to make the issue about "FREEDOM!", when the real issue is Google & Netflix are working to offload as much of their cost base to the ISPs, and thus the end-user indirectly.

 

There's useful discussions to be had about how American Utility companies operate under the current rules and all of the decades of problems it has caused. That's normally beyond the purview of most Americans, so it's a topic that has weight to the discussion. But we can't have that discussion because either a Paid Shill or someone that's bought the propaganda the entire way will show up and scream at/lie to/attempt to shame people for not supporting "Net Neutrality". Even if, at this point, it's not really that much about the Net and it's definitely not about being Neutral. 

[TheCherryKing]

People have shook the "naughty stick" at me for not supporting net neutrality. 

[Maxxtraxx]

Quote directly from an article that addresses this topic, I find myself in direct agreement with most of it. And most of this article's content goes completely untouched by the mainstream because to them freedom means being able to freely censor any voices that dissent from being politically correct or left wing tech monopoly corporation approved.

 

"Do ISPs have the potential to become the content police of the internet, absent regulation? Yes they do, and that is a legitimate concern for defenders of internet freedom. It’s not hard to imagine a scenario in which an ISP, pressured by governments, activists and the media, decides to cut off access to a loathed website (say, the Daily Stormer), and in doing so undermine the principle of the open web.

But it’s weird for ISPs to be the primary target of such fears, when it’s online platforms and services (the ones not currently subject to Net Neutrality rules) that did precisely that. Specifically Google and GoDaddy, which cut off domain support for the Stormer, and Cloudflare, which cut off DDoS protection to the site.

ISPs could conceivably do the same thing, but they haven’t yet, outside of authoritarian countries like China and Turkey. Moreover, they are considerably more resistant to the kind of advertiser boycotts that forced YouTube away from content neutrality, because they’re reliant on subscription rather than ad revenue. They also know that if they take any steps towards censorship, well-funded Net Neutrality activists and their allies in Congress will pounce.

That’s why they, unlike Google, Facebook, Twitter, and other platforms that censor with impunity, have made public pledges not to act as gatekeepers."

 

Article can be found here

[koobear]

One thing I've been noticing is that people don't really know the history behind net neutrality. This isn't a recent issue--it's been ongoing for over a decade.

 

I think most people are aware that our current big ISPs got to where they are through government/public help. They got tax breaks, they were paid with government money (AKA our tax dollars), they got subsidies, etc. to establish the infrastructure we have now. And I think most people are aware that now that they got our help, they're claiming that the infrastructure is theirs and theirs alone, preventing other ISPs from providing competition. Even Google, with their vast resources and influence, can't get anywhere with Google Fiber, which is why they've been slowly giving up on the dream of gigabit internet throughout the United States. Keep in mind that Google has a lot to gain from providing fast internet access to everyone in the world--the more people have internet, the more they use Google services, so Google could provide internet access for everyone at a loss and still make a profit overall. And even they can't break through against the likes of Verizon, Comcast, and AT&T.

 

What people don't know is that net neutrality became a big deal because of what big ISPs have done in the past already. It wasn't like out of the blue we decided, "Hey, we should place regulations on ISPs!" No, this was a result of a few legal battles. Here's what happened:

 

1. The FCC drew up some guidelines on keeping the internet free and open, namely that they believe ISPs should not violate net neutrality.
2. ISPs were upset about these guidelines, but not much was done--they were pretty reasonable (net neutrality is a reasonable policy).
3. Eventually, Comcast, those motherfuckers, actually decided to violate net neutrality. They didn't like p2p connections, so they started blocking and throttling them. Time to take them to court! But Comcast won. The courts said that unless ISPs are classified as "common carriers", net neutrality doesn't apply to them.
4. Verizon decides to take a stab at this too. While they weren't formally charged with violating net neutrality (although I'm pretty sure they did--I remember several years ago when YouTube was getting throttled, and I verified it was just YouTube by using a proxy), they sued the FCC over their net neutrality guidelines and won. Again, the courts said that unless ISPs are classified as common carriers, net neutrality doesn't apply to them.
5. So we finally did it. The FCC reclassified ISPs as common carriers. 
6. Unfortunately with a new administration comes a new FCC chairman. How the FCC works is there are 2 Republicans and 2 Democrats (i.e., two from each major party), and the final person is chosen by the president. The current administration doesn't agree with net neutrality. And since this was a FCC ruling, they can take it back with a vote. 

[captain_to_fire]

Here’s a discussion from CNET’s defunct podcast Buzz Out Loud back in 2009. It’s a good one discussing the ramifications if net neutrality got repealed. https://archive.org/details/NetNeutralityDoubleRant 

[AresKrieger]

Again net neutrality is in some aspects necessary at this point,  however the reason that it is this way is due to monopolies so why don't we say fix the root of the problem rather than a symptom of it.

 

Realistically there is no need for net neutrality however until someone fixes the root issue it is a nice safeguard, however as far as I'm concerned it should be a temporary one.

[LAwLz]

34 minutes ago, AresKrieger said:

Again net neutrality is in some aspects necessary at this point,  however the reason that it is this way is due to monopolies so why don't we say fix the root of the problem rather than a symptom of it.

 

Realistically there is no need for net neutrality however until someone fixes the root issue it is a nice safeguard, however as far as I'm concerned it should be a temporary one.

Fixing the "root issue" is next to impossible though.

 

One of the few way of fixing it would be to do what Sweden does, have municipalities (and also some private companies which are not consumer-facing ISPs) build public fiber networks which any ISP can rent. My parents can choose between 16 different ISPs which all use the same infrastructure (government owned and funded). Since they all use the same infrastructure, the only thing they can compete with are things like low prices, good support, no bandwidth caps, no throttling and so on.

As soon as companies start owning the fiber though, they get what is essentially a monopoly on Internet access in different areas and can do whatever they want unless heavily regulated with rules such as net neutrality.

 

But I doubt a country which is so against its own government (and in many aspects it truly is awful) would be willing to let their tax-money be used by the government to build out massive fiber networks which they will maintain. I am not even sure I would trust the US government doing that after all the horrible things they have done. The potential for spying would be massive.

But it's either government owned infrastructure, or harsh regulations such as net neutrality. There isn't really any other solutions than those two. And no, just getting rid of net neutrality and letting the ISPs do whatever they want does not work. ISPs in the US are horrible and have proven time, and time again that they can not be trusted.

[jagdtigger]

I can already see the frog slowly boiled. After a few years the USA internet will be like cable TV. You get a useless base packet then pay up for everything else...

[dalekphalm]

25 minutes ago, TheCherryKing said:

I will not discuss any other political issues in Sweden due to the forum rules. The internet should be privatized and not regulated by the government in anyway whatsoever. 

When it's reasonably easy for a new company to form an ISP pretty much anywhere they want, and build the infrastructure needed to offer good fees, then government regulation will not be necessary.

 

The problem is that the barrier to entry is almost impossible unless you're a multi-billion dollar company like Google. And they ran into a wall due to the incumbent ISP's fighting back against Google's expansion.

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, TheCherryKing said:

I will not discuss any other political issues in Sweden due to the forum rules.

What political issues? Remember, we're talking strictly about Internet infrastructure here, not anything like immigration, taxes, school politics or anything of that sorts. Just Internet related things. I don't think any comment from you regarding Sweden's Internet infrastructure would break the forum rules. The only way you would break those rules were if you for example wanted to create a red herring or ad hominem argument where you bring up Sweden's issues in other sectors in a poor attempt to try and discredit our (if I do say so myself) excellent Internet infrastructure.

 

1 hour ago, TheCherryKing said:

The internet should be privatized and not regulated by the government in anyway whatsoever. 

Got any arguments for why it should be privatized or is your stance on that purely based on ideological ideas?

Government run infrastructure works exceptionally well here in Sweden but like I said, the US differs quite a lot and it would probably not work. Since that solution won't work, regulations which prevents monopolies from abusing their customers are necessary. Maybe you got some other suggestion on how to solve the undeniable abusive practices ISPs such as Verizon engage in when left unregulated?

[leadeater]

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

One of the few way of fixing it would be to do what Sweden does, have municipalities (and also some private companies which are not consumer-facing ISPs) build public fiber networks which any ISP can rent. My parents can choose between 16 different ISPs which all use the same infrastructure (government owned and funded). Since they all use the same infrastructure, the only thing they can compete with are things like low prices, good support, no bandwidth caps, no throttling and so on.

This is what NZ also did and within a year we started seeing huge price drops, much larger or in most cases unlimited data caps and more ISPs overall.

 

NZ and Aus used to have very similar internet access speeds and one ISP owned the entire telecommunications network, there were some other ISPs with their own fibre but very limited, called Telecom. Or Gov forced Telecom to split in to a two companies, a lines company (Chorus) and a customer ISP (Spark).

 

Not long after that Aus started their NBN project and then soon after that NZ started the UFB project which was a direct copy of the original Aus NBN. Aus still has around 4 major ISPs that own the infrastructure and also retail internet to consumers, these companies control their own parts of Aus and don't really directly compete with each other. All you need to do now is look at the difference in situation between NZ and Aus to know that infrastructure and retail needs to be split because together the self interest and level of control is too great.

 

Pre Telecom split we got plans that you were lucky to get over 9Mbps and 40GB data caps. Post telecom split, up to 1Gbps with no data caps. Aus is still stuck with 9Mbps being common and still mostly lucky and 30Mbps in major cities still being considered very good, at least unlimited data caps is more common there now so that is good.

 

Edit:

All companies involved are private, they did receive Gov money to roll out the UFB network but it was all done by private companies.

[TheCherryKing]

20 hours ago, LAwLz said:

<snip>

Obviously I will not be discussing the political issues you just mentioned here except for net neutrality. Many things that work in Europe don't and won't work in the US - especially the internet infrastructure. 

[DutchTexan]

41 minutes ago, TheCherryKing said:

Obviously I will not be discussing the political issues you just mentioned here except for net neutrality. Many things that work in Europe don't and won't work in the US - especially the internet infrastructure. 

I agree. 'XYZ country has good infrastructure and general internet speeds, therefore the entire USA should do exactly what they do' is a bad argument. This is the same as arguing public transportation in Japan vs. the US. You are wasting your time.

 

With that being said, I have 2 options for internet:

1. Xfinity by Comcast(God awful) 

2. AT&T(even worse)

 

AT&T offers 1 plan in my area:

 

 

 

Whatever has been going on for a while is NOT working

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, TheCherryKing said:

Obviously I will not be discussing the political issues you just mentioned here except for net neutrality. Many things that work in Europe don't and won't work in the US - especially the internet infrastructure. 

For example? And why would it not work?

What solution do you recommend instead? You seem very focused on discrediting solutions that works elsewhere without any rational for why they are bad or wouldn't work, but you don't come with any suggestions on your own.

[DutchTexan]

3 hours ago, LAwLz said:

. . . regulations which prevents monopolies from abusing their customers are necessary

 

[leadeater]

7 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

For example? And why would it not work?

What solution do you recommend instead? You seem very focused on discrediting solutions that works elsewhere without any rational for why they are bad or wouldn't work, but you don't come with any suggestions on your own.

I guess it comes from the ideal of regulation free, but in reality there is no such thing as regulation free. Even tribal customs is a forum of regulation, there does need to be a foundation upon which commerce and trade can be done. Currency itself is regulation.

 

The internet was not born from a regulation free environment, in fact it was born from the most regulated thing possible, military communication which then expanded in to science and research communication.

 

I think the point was missed as to what you were saying though, at least I think it was. You, and I, were not talking about regulating data on the internet but rather regulating the infrastructure that comprises the internet. 

 

Other countries don't have to exactly duplicate what others have done but looking at what has been done and understanding which aspects of it has made it work is the best way to figure out a good local solution, rather than reinventing the wheel. Separation of wholesale and retail internet services so far has worked and has been achieved multiple different ways, but that fundamental has been shown to work. Actually giving that a go rather than doing nothing is better, doing nothing changes nothing. If that doesn't work try something else.

[DutchTexan]

26 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

For example? And why would it not work?

What solution do you recommend instead? You seem very focused on discrediting solutions that works elsewhere without any rational for why they are bad or wouldn't work, but you don't come with any suggestions on your own.

Several of you seem very focused on pretending that some little European country's solution would automatically work in the entire US. That is what he is stating. Infrastructure in the US is entirely different than most of the world. That is what he is stating.

 

Whatever regulations that are currently in place are not protecting me, the consumer. I am not saying those regulations need to go, I am just saying those regulations could have something to do with why I am virtually stuck with one internet provider; why my YouTube videos buffer between 6pm-8pm, no matter how much I am willing to pay for internet.

 

The same argument can be had for public transportation. I am sure there are great public transportation systems that work for some cities or even whole countries, but that doesn't mean it will work for the US.

 

Regulations in America technically do prevent monopolies, but they sure as fucking hell don't discourage oligopolies. 

 

The free market argument is 100% valid and I agree with it. If the internet was free, as in there were not governmental restriction to serving customers, then I would be happy. However, we don't currently have a free market for internet. Maybe that's because everything is already an oligopoly or we have gone past the point of no return for a global oligarchy, in general. Maybe it's because of the current regulations to 'protect' consumers(((doubt))). I don't know. I can't pretend to really know what will happen, I just know what ever is happening hasn't been working for me. That's what I am saying.

[TheCherryKing]

1 hour ago, DutchTexan said:

Several of you seem very focused on pretending that some little European country's solution would automatically work in the entire US. That is what he is stating. Infrastructure in the US is entirely different than most of the world. That is what he is stating.

 

Whatever regulations that are currently in place are not protecting me, the consumer. I am not saying those regulations need to go, I am just saying those regulations could have something to do with why I am virtually stuck with one internet provider; why my YouTube videos buffer between 6pm-8pm, no matter how much I am willing to pay for internet.

 

The same argument can be had for public transportation. I am sure there are great public transportation systems that work for some cities or even whole countries, but that doesn't mean it will work for the US.

 

Regulations in America technically do prevent monopolies, but they sure as fucking hell don't discourage oligopolies. 

 

The free market argument is 100% valid and I agree with it. If the internet was free, as in there were not governmental restriction to serving customers, then I would be happy. However, we don't currently have a free market for internet. Maybe that's because everything is already an oligopoly or we have gone past the point of no return for a global oligarchy, in general. Maybe it's because of the current regulations to 'protect' consumers(((doubt))). I don't know. I can't pretend to really know what will happen, I just know what ever is happening hasn't been working for me. That's what I am saying.

Thank you.

[TheCherryKing]

The only government regulation when it comes to internet should be making sure that there aren't any hidden fees or data collection without the user agreeing to it when the sign a contract with their ISP.

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, DutchTexan said:

Several of you seem very focused on pretending that some little European country's solution would automatically work in the entire US.

I will point out size wise USA isn't actually that big, world maps aren't exactly true to scale. So if the basis is on land size and how much of a problem it is and how expensive it is to lay fibre cabling spare a thought for Australia .

 

 

Australia has to lay the same infrastructure with a fraction of the population to fund it, and they can't really go across the continent they have to go around it.

 

Land size wise Europe is roughly equivalent to the US too.

Seems to me the issues have little to do with both land size and population size, neither is it really that fair to say European countries are tiny when not a single US state has been able to provide even half of what most of those countries have with similar land size and population size as an average US state.

 

It appears that individual states are unable govern themselves in such a way to allow proper internet infrastructure competition, something is preventing that from happening.

[Clanscorpia]

3 minutes ago, leadeater said:

I will point out size wise USA isn't actually that big, world maps aren't exactly true to scale. So if the basis is on land size and how much of a problem it is and how expensive it is to lay fibre cabling spare a thought for Australia .

 

 

 

Just remember that while they are the same size the population density in each is extremely different. Its quite dense in Australia, and quite spread out in the states. Areas that are built up, like in Australia have really good internet service, areas that are more spread out, which doesnt happen much in Australia, have pretty crap internet. Its like that here in Canada too.