FCC Unveils Plan To Repeal Net Neutrality Rules

[Sauron]

5 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

1) Then get more ISPs in your area.
2) Then install more cables and work around bad ISPs.
3) Don't renew the contract.
4) They won't succeed because the rules were made to prevent them from competing with the big ISPs. Change the law and regulations to allow them to compete.

1) I don't know how to spell it out for you. It. Is. Not. Legal. To just create an ISP from nowhere unless you have government permission, and to get it you need to fight an uphill battle against ISP lobbies for years with more money than most companies can afford to spend.

2) See point 1.

3) And get no internet? You do that.

4)Show me their intent to change those rules.

10 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

If there's no competition, another reason to complain about permits to open new ISPs.

If you can get a good service at a lower price from a local provider, you would probably do that instead of getting a poor service from a giant that charges an absurd amount of money.

Yeah, I know that it's just the local network, but you know what prevent most people from getting multiple providers? The last mile, that is the most expensive part of the network, and that is exactly why big ISPs control most of the internet. Connecting that local network to the internet is the next step, and that can be done by other providers, like Level 3. I don't know exactly how traffic exchange between ISPs work on US, but on Brazil there are multiple public spaces called PTT (exchange traffic point) that ISPs just install their routers and connect to other networks.

Cities can do whatever people inside it can do, so people can build their own ISPs. How exactly do you think competitors will appear, grow and then challenge the big ISPs? Another huge ISP coming out of nowhere? That won't happen.

Net neutrality has nothing to do with ISP competition, but online services competition. Is it illegal? Then change the law to make it legal (at least for specialized companies), or dig a cable tunnel, or ground cables.

see above.

[Eduard the weeb]

8 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

1) Then get more ISPs in your area.
2) Then install more cables and work around bad ISPs.
3) Don't renew the contract.
4) They won't succeed because the rules were made to prevent them from competing with the big ISPs. Change the law and regulations to allow them to compete.

1 Not in my power, government how is being payed to not let that happen

2 City does that not citizens and that would have to be a grid and new ISP would have to come in

3 Money is money 

4 Do I look like I am the president? Majority of Americans want Net Neutrality to stay but they don't care, so I doubt they want us bypassing ISP because they are being payed by ISP.

[Sauron]

24 minutes ago, Eduard the weeb said:

my friend said comcast and I am pretty sure google wanted Net Neutrality to stay.

google doesn't count because they aren't a major isp. comcast does but I'd like to see a source for that.

[Eduard the weeb]

2 minutes ago, Sauron said:

comcast does but I'd like to see a source for that.

Yeah I think he is wrong because On The TEAM CABLE part of https://www.battleforthenet.com/ Comcast is the first one.

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

They don't require new legislation/regulations, just revoking old ones, and it seems americans got the right president to do that.

 

1) That's exactly why I'm saying that it should be made legal, revoking the law that prevents it. Simple as that. There should be no government permission to do that.
3) Obviously when you have another ISP...
4) Trump revoking a bunch of stupid regulations is a good start.

 

1) NN is not in your power either.
2) People do that. Cities are an abstract concept.
3) ?
4) Nope, but the same way you're complaining about NN, you should be complaining about competition, that is the source of your problems.

I'm not sure if you are familiar with how laws work in the United States, but in order to revoke a piece of legislation, they need to introduce a new piece of legislation that then revokes the existing piece of legislation.

 

That requires a majority vote by both Congress and Senate, and the consent of the President (Trump). OR a Supermajority in both Congress and Senate, in order to override a veto by the President.

 

Then, in addition, each and every state and city would likely have to amend or revoke existing legislation/by-laws.

 

That's about as unlikely as a scenario can get.

[Sauron]

2 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

1) That's exactly why I'm saying that it should be made legal, revoking the law that prevents it. Simple as that. There should be no government permission to do that.

But they are not doing that. They ARE repealing net neutrality. If you want that change to happen talk to the government, not to me. This has NOTHING to do with the problem at hand.

4 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

3) Obviously when you have another ISP...

What if there is no other isp or all isps do the same? Have you even read what I wrote?

[dalekphalm]

Just now, gabrielcarvfer said:

Meh, the same scheme as we have here, but that can be done easily. 2 or 3 months if both congress and senate really wanted it.

 

Yes, and NN doesn't make any difference if you have competition, that's my point. This has nothing to do with me, as I'm in another country. If there are no other ISPs, and remember that I was talking about new local ISPs when I said that, you are going to be screwed by whoever is servicing you, with NN or without it.

Not true as NN can force the ISP to abandon anti-comsumer practices in cases where there is a local monopoly. It's certainly not as good as proper competition, but in the US, proper competition is incredibly rare, and in most places, almost impossible due to barriers in the form of legislation and lobbying to big ISP's to keep it that way.

[Sauron]

2 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

Yes, and NN doesn't make any difference if you have competition, that's my point.

But there is no competition in the US. I said this 3 times already.

3 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

This has nothing to do with me, as I'm in another country.

Yes it does, because most of the online services you are likely to use are primarily based in the US. If american ISPs get to control traffic in the US they also get to control what US companies can put online in the first place - you can't make a website if your ISP blocks you from uploading to your domain.

6 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

f there are no other ISPs, and remember that I was talking about new local ISPs when I said that, you are going to be screwed by whoever is servicing you, with NN or without it.

I said multiple times that local ISPs are not a thing in the US aside from extremely fringe cases that can't possibly hope to compete with the major companies on even footing. And WITH net neutrality, you are NOT going to get screwed outside of access speed because they CAN'T throttle your traffic to select websites. So no, this is not true in the slightest and frankly it looks like you don't even know what net neutrality actually does.

[Eduard the weeb]

 

9 hours ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

1) NN is not in your power either.
2) People do that. Cities are an abstract concept.
3) ?
4) Nope, but the same way you're complaining about NN, you should be complaining about competition, that is the source of your problems.

1 you can still fight

2 no its not the people job your ISP or Your city digs the cables were I live.

3. Companies will most likely come back for the money because it may be a while till another ISP hires your company, that not competition it hurts and makes it harder to switch ISP and they may block that ISP website.

Quote

What is an 'Open Internet'?

Sometimes referred to as "net neutrality," "Internet freedom" or the "open Internet," these rules protect your ability to go where you want when you want online. Broadband service providers cannot block or deliberately slow speeds for internet services or apps, favor some internet traffic in exchange for consideration, or engage in other practices that harm internet openness.

literary on FCC website.

[TheCherryKing]

1 hour ago, Sauron said:

You're welcome to answer any of the comments explaining why you think they are wrong but, honestly, if you're just going to post vague statements without making a single point, insinuating our arguments are dumb and claiming we don't accept other viewpoints, then I suggest you find a more productive use of your time. Flooding the thread with attempts at smug and edgy remarks won't get you anywhere.

Arguing with me and trying to convince people that net neutrality is needed won't get you anywhere. It will be repealed anyway!

[Sauron]

8 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

And I trust you, but I was just repeating that you problem is solved with competition, not forcing people to do what you think is correct.

That's a broader problem for another time; right now, repealing net neutrality will lead to disaster.

8 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

Not really, but let's assume you're right: most big companies (and their datacenters) don't rely on normal ISPs, but companies like Level 3 and others alike, and their traffic usually flows without any problems to traffic exchange points and then through submarine cables. That means that I'm totally not getting screwed over by your ISPs.

I'm not in the US either, to clarify.

 

Perhaps the likes of Google can rely on that sort of service directly to the submarine cables, but smaller companies (and especially non-profit organizations) can't. Aside from that, Google would take a major hit from not being accesses by US citizens and therefore they'll most likely comply with whatever us ISPs ask of them, meaning this will also influence what you get access to through Google, which is not good. Either way, even if this didn't affect us at least we can empathize with those who are.

13 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

They can't throttle, but can they "accidentally" drop packages and reduce your speed by doing that? Probably.

Not legally, and that's the best we can ask for. If they did that too consistently there would be class action lawsuits and federal investigations.

14 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

My point with NN is: if you really think all traffic should be treated equally, you should build your own ISP.

...with blackack and hookers!

 

Jokes aside, it really is not that simple, and it's the same as saying "if you want unrestricted access to water you should build your own pipes and sewers". To work properly, society must have specialized occupations and you can't expect everyone to provide every service for themselves. For basic services like water and internet access (which is now pretty much essential to everyone who isn't in retirement, and will soon be even for those who are) it is reasonable for the government to step in and ensure fair play from everyone involved.

[Taja]

Honest question from a non american here:

 

I know ending net neutrality is bad, but from what I read (correct me if im wrong) the net neutrality laws started less than 4 years ago... So why people.are acting like it is the apocalypse if the internet before net neutrality was not a horrible cancer?

 

Has something changed? Am I missing some critical information?

 

[dalekphalm]

40 minutes ago, Taja said:

Honest question from a non american here:

 

I know ending net neutrality is bad, but from what I read (correct me if im wrong) the net neutrality laws started less than 4 years ago... So why people.are acting like it is the apocalypse if the internet before net neutrality was not a horrible cancer?

 

Has something changed? Am I missing some critical information?

 

One of the reasons people are losing their minds is because before the NN laws were enacted, pretty much all of the major ISPs were starting to do anti consumer practices. Many of them were even caught red handed doing things like throttling competition, etc. 

 

Netflix for example was being throttled and at least one ISP managed to strong arm them into PAYING the ISP so that they wouldn’t be throttled. This was even after Netflix offered to install local content cache servers inside the ISP data centre FOR FREE. 

 

And even after NN was enacted, ISPs still tried anti consumer practices. 

 

Why would we assume that the ISPs would suddenly play nice once the regulations forcing them to do so disappear? Historically they have proven unreliable. 

[Taja]

Just now, dalekphalm said:

One of the reasons people are losing their minds is because before the NN laws were enacted, pretty much all of the major ISPs were starting to do anti consumer practices. Many of them were even caught red handed doing things like throttling competition, etc. 

 

Netflix for example was being throttled and at least one ISP managed to strong arm them into PAYING the ISP so that they wouldn’t be throttled. This was even after Netflix offered to install local content cache servers inside the ISP data centre FOR FREE. 

 

And even after NN was enacted, ISPs still tried anti consumer practices. 

 

Why would we assume that the ISPs would suddenly play nice once the regulations forcing them to do so disappear? Historically they have proven unreliable. 

Yeah I see, I agree that you cant trust these companies, but what I didnt understand is why they would "become evil" NOW.

But what you are saying is that they WERE becoming evil, than the NN stopped this, and now without NN they will start getting worse again and again?

[dalekphalm]

6 minutes ago, Taja said:

Yeah I see, I agree that you cant trust these companies, but what I didnt understand is why they would "become evil" NOW.

But what you are saying is that they WERE becoming evil, than the NN stopped this, and now without NN they will start getting worse again and again?

Yes that is correct. The big ISPs in the US were well on their way to the "evil apocalypse" that people are worried about.

 

Here's a non-comprehensive list that I found:

https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history

 

Example, in 2012 AT&T announced that it would change it's plans so that you cannot use Facetime on iPhones less you upgrade to a higher tier plan with more data - even if you were never going over your data to begin with. This was because AT&T had their own competing video calling platform. So they were attempting to force people to either use their own service, or simply pay up.

 

AT&T and Verizon in particular appear on that list more than once.

[Eduard the weeb]

1 hour ago, Taja said:

Yeah I see, I agree that you cant trust these companies, but what I didnt understand is why they would "become evil" NOW.

But what you are saying is that they WERE becoming evil, than the NN stopped this, and now without NN they will start getting worse again and again?

yeas exactly when in 2015 NN was passed it allowed people to be able to access the internet without the wraith of the ISP, but if it was removed they would begin these practices were internet sites could be blocked and sadly VPNS wouldn't work because ISP know your on a VPN but are forced to give you connection by removing NN they can slow down or block VPNS and site they don't like  for there gain. 

[TheCherryKing]

24 minutes ago, Eduard the weeb said:

yeas exactly when in 2015 NN was passed it allowed people to be able to access the internet without the wraith of the ISP, but if it was removed they would begin these practices were internet sites could be blocked and sadly VPNS wouldn't work because ISP know your on a VPN but are forced to give you connection by removing NN they can slow down or block VPNS and site they don't like  for there gain. 

That's just an assumption. It is possible that ISPs will slow down data more but it is not a guarantee. Back up your arguments with facts, not assumptions. 

[Eduard the weeb]

Just now, TheCherryKing said:

That's just an assumption. It is possible that ISPs will slow down data more but it is not a guarantee. Back up your arguments with facts, not assumptions. 

okay cool.

[captain_to_fire]

13 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

I still hate his policies and his stance on Net Neutrality, but that was rather amusing.

The dislikes in that video gives me hope for humanity 

[TheCherryKing]

2 minutes ago, hey_yo_ said:

The dislikes in that video gives me hope for humanity 

What good will that do? Nothing! 

[Taf the Ghost]

On 11/25/2017 at 11:54 PM, leadeater said:

Wow I didn't actually expect Wash DC to top that list, mind you Massachusetts is even more surprising to me. In fact I was expecting the West coast to generally be higher than the East since that is where most of the undersea cables that are important to me go, great example of selective memory lol. There are plenty of undersea cables on the East coast that I never really think about.

East Coast, especially New England region, has significantly smaller states with much higher population densities. The Western states are massive in comparison, and that matters when it comes to running lines. Especially when property in the Western states tends to be much more widely spaced than most of the rest of the world.

[LAwLz]

4 hours ago, TheCherryKing said:

What good will that do? Nothing! 

Still waiting for answers to my questions...

1. Why do you believe that the Internet should be privatized with no regulations? What benefits does that have?
2. Why do you believe it is essential that the government does not own any of the infrastructure? What do you think would change if that were to happen?
3. Why do you think what has been proven to work in several countries such as NZ and Sweden wouldn't work in the US? 
4. What solution would you recommend instead? Internet in the US is shit and sometime needs to change, because right now the situation is getting worse and worse.

[Gravesnear]

I hope not, this site is slow enough for me as it is.

[AlTech]

16 hours ago, TheCherryKing said:

I actually have gotten dumber reading the comments here but whatever!

So you'd be happy paying ISPs a lot more money for an "Internet Media Package" to view the forums?

 

Because that's what's going to happen if net neutrality is repealed.

[AlTech]

6 hours ago, TheCherryKing said:

That's just an assumption. It is possible that ISPs will slow down data more but it is not a guarantee. Back up your arguments with facts, not assumptions. 

 

6 hours ago, Eduard the weeb said:

okay cool.

A few years ago, before Net neutrality: Netflix was forced to pay Verizon or Comcast ludicrous amounts of money to not be throttled. If they didn't pay then people wouldn't be able to use netflix and they'd switch to something else.

 

That is why net neutrality was implemented.