FCC Unveils Plan To Repeal Net Neutrality Rules

[deadpaww]

I think people need to be less scared of the possible repeal. I want Net Neutrality because I like where we are at and change can be scary but people saying there will be internet packages, $5 to use facebook is simply untrue. There will be changes to the internet but those will revolve around increased speed and possibly increased pricing for increased speed. 

 

Net Neutrality is not flawless and neither is a repeal. Though this idea that the internet is doomed is a bit over the top. We only had Net Neutralit for 2 years. Canada, the UK, wherver else, they don’t have Net Neutralit and do fine, their internet is just as free and open. The repeal wouls put us back to 2015 internet and in 2015, there were no internet packages, none for 20+ years.

 

People are too scared of possibilites with net neutrality appeal, rather than odds. It’s possible a meteor strikes earth with the force of 100 suns but the odds aren’t great. To make internet packages would be a market suicide. The consumers have a voice, look at EA and their loot boxes. 

 

On the point of sites being throttled, that in it’s own could bring laws suits from multiple angles and would also be poor consumer care.

 

Do I think this site will be affected? No. The repeal turns the internet into more of a free market. Do I think a free market is the answer? Probably not, I’d like some laws. However, the market works itself out. I have faith in the fact that consumers have power and in the end, no matter what happens in december, the internet will stay nearly the same as it is now, minus or plus some speed, minus or plus some dollars.

[deadpaww]

1 hour ago, AluminiumTech said:

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Because that's what's going to happen if net neutrality is repealed.

I just want to quote you directly. Read my post above but this statement is the reasom people become scared. It’s these kind of assumptions, that do more harm than good. Just because a company can do something...doesn’t mean they will and NEVER in the US, has any ISP done this. We only had Net Neutrality for 2 years....only 2. There were never internet packages and to assume that’s what would happen and state it as fact is close to fear tactics. There are plently of things companies can do and never even consider. I am for Net Neutrality at the moment, until it becomes a problem but these kind fear setting statements said as facts need to stop.

 

People argue my point here by saying “ISP’s don’t care” “ISP’s are evil”. “They only want money” Well, yes, they want money, I do too. Though to do something as WILDLY unpopular as literally limiting the internet and where you go, come on...you really think that would happen? The internet is so quickly changing, improving, moving forward, that to limit it to such a crazy extent would be harmful to the ISP. 

 

[AlTech]

1 hour ago, deadpaww said:

I just want to quote you directly. Read my post above but this statement is the reasom people become scared. It’s these kind of assumptions, that do more harm than good. Just because a company can do something...doesn’t mean they will and NEVER in the US, has any ISP done this. We only had Net Neutrality for 2 years....only 2. There were never internet packages and to assume that’s what would happen and state it as fact is close to fear tactics. There are plently of things companies can do and never even consider. I am for Net Neutrality at the moment, until it becomes a problem but these kind fear setting statements said as facts need to stop.

 

People argue my point here by saying “ISP’s don’t care” “ISP’s are evil”. “They only want money” Well, yes, they want money, I do too. Though to do something as WILDLY unpopular as literally limiting the internet and where you go, come on...you really think that would happen? The internet is so quickly changing, improving, moving forward, that to limit it to such a crazy extent would be harmful to the ISP. 

 

Internet packaging and manipulating and ruining the internet already happens in some countries like Portugal.

[TheCherryKing]

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

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.

First off I'm not against treating data equally. I am against government regulation and treating the internet as a public utility

1. "Instead of giving a man a fish, teach the man to fish instead." That means people should rely less on the government. With proper competition the ISP's would keep each other in check instead of the government.

2. In fact, there needs to be LESS government regulation! This will allow ISP's to quickly add fiber lines throughout the country resulting in a more competitive economy. 

3. The cable and fiber lines are private property for the ISP's, the government doesn't have the right to seize private property nor will the ISP's sell their infrastructure. 

4. Why would you care what the US is like? You are in Sweden with "supposedly good" internet structure. I recommend that most if not all of the government regulations regarding the addition to fiber lines in cities are removed. As stated earlier completion should keep the ISP's in check, not the government. A good example is the major mobile broadband providers here. stopping to offer unlimited data a few years ago. T-Mobile still offered unlimited data so to be competitive the rest of the cellular providers brought back unlimited data. 

[Eduard the weeb]

3 hours ago, Gravesnear said:

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

RIP sorry to hear that.

[Eduard the weeb]

2 hours ago, deadpaww said:

To make internet packages would be a market suicide.

wouldn't all major ISP be doing it thought making it less suicidal? 

[Bit_Guardian]

22 minutes ago, TheCherryKing said:

First off I'm not against treating data equally. I am against government regulation and treating the internet as a public utility

1. "Instead of giving a man a fish, teach the man to fish instead." That means people should rely less on the government. With proper competition the ISP's would keep each other in check instead of the government.

2. In fact, there needs to be LESS government regulation! This will allow ISP's to quickly add fiber lines throughout the country resulting in a more competitive economy. 

3. The cable and fiber lines are private property for the ISP's, the government doesn't have the right to seize private property nor will the ISP's sell their infrastructure. 

4. Why would you care what the US is like? You are in Sweden with "supposedly good" internet structure. I recommend that most if not all of the government regulations regarding the addition to fiber lines in cities are removed. As stated earlier completion should keep the ISP's in check, not the government. A good example is the major mobile broadband providers here. stopping to offer unlimited data a few years ago. T-Mobile still offered unlimited data so to be competitive the rest of the cellular providers brought back unlimited data. 

But in the case of fiber infrastructure, the cost of entry is so high even without regulation there's practically no one willing. Even Google gave up. No, the model Lawlz describes has worked marvelously in New Zealand, Australia, and most if not all of Europe. It can definitely work here. If you have a central entity building the infrastructure with ISPs renting it, you get vastly more competition. It's proven.

[WkdPaul]

2 hours ago, TheCherryKing said:

First off I'm not against treating data equally. I am against government regulation and treating the internet as a public utility

1. "Instead of giving a man a fish, teach the man to fish instead." That means people should rely less on the government. With proper competition the ISP's would keep each other in check instead of the government.

2. In fact, there needs to be LESS government regulation! This will allow ISP's to quickly add fiber lines throughout the country resulting in a more competitive economy. 

3. The cable and fiber lines are private property for the ISP's, the government doesn't have the right to seize private property nor will the ISP's sell their infrastructure. 

4. Why would you care what the US is like? You are in Sweden with "supposedly good" internet structure. I recommend that most if not all of the government regulations regarding the addition to fiber lines in cities are removed. As stated earlier completion should keep the ISP's in check, not the government. A good example is the major mobile broadband providers here. stopping to offer unlimited data a few years ago. T-Mobile still offered unlimited data so to be competitive the rest of the cellular providers brought back unlimited data. 

While it may sound like a good idea, less regulations actually helps companies, not the customer.

 

I totally understand people wanting less government in their lives, but SOME regulation is a given.

 

I'll take the Canadian's cellphone providers as an exemple ; starting years ago, the Canadian gov. decided to impose regulations around cellphone providers. The result? We now have more competition (not less) smaller companies are now able offer better prices since they can rent the big companies infrastructures and piggyback on it (that's also part of the regulation imposed).

 

Same thing goes with the internet, thing is, if you back there WASN'T any regulations, and ISPs were found to throttle access to some services/website, that's why the regulations were put into place (see HERE).

 

Again, I understand why people want to see less government interventions, but sometimes, to protect to general public, regulations HAVE to be imposed on companies. I would highly recommend that you read about WHY x,y or z regulation was put into place before saying it should go, chances are, it was to protect the citizens in some way!

[LAwLz]

57 minutes ago, TheCherryKing said:

1. "Instead of giving a man a fish, teach the man to fish instead." That means people should rely less on the government. With proper competition the ISP's would keep each other in check instead of the government.

That's all fine and good, but the problem is that "proper competition" does not exist when it comes to ISPs in the US. What solution do you suggest to this issue?

 

57 minutes ago, TheCherryKing said:

2. In fact, there needs to be LESS government regulation! This will allow ISP's to quickly add fiber lines throughout the country resulting in a more competitive economy.

So you think government regulations is the reason why there is a lack of competition? You don't think it's because of things such as massive buyouts of smaller ISPs, ISPs collaborating to not expand into each others' regions, and an extremely high barrier to entry?

What specific regulations would you like to get rid of and how do you think that would increase competition?

 

57 minutes ago, TheCherryKing said:

3. The cable and fiber lines are private property for the ISP's, the government doesn't have the right to seize private property nor will the ISP's sell their infrastructure. 

Well buying existing fiber is one way of dealing with it, but I was actually thinking of the US government building their own fiber and then renting that to ISPs. No need for hostile takeover of existing fiber. By the way, I am fairly sure they do have the right to do that. It's called eminent domain and it is quite regularly used for things such as building roads.

What objection do you have to the government building their own fibers and renting that out to ISPs?

Please bear in mind that the government is already funding ISPs to build fiber networks. For example California has spend 81 million dollars funding the upgrades of broadband infrastructure.

US ISPs have been given somewhere around 500 billion dollars of tax money in order to upgrade their infrastructure, and they have mostly ignored put it in their own pockets. Imagine what could have been done if the government had built their own fiber networks and offered them to all ISPs instead.

You solve the issue of a lack of fiber, and you solve the issue of ISPs avoiding each others' turfs to create monopolies.

 

57 minutes ago, TheCherryKing said:

4. Why would you care what the US is like? You are in Sweden with "supposedly good" internet structure. I recommend that most if not all of the government regulations regarding the addition to fiber lines in cities are removed. As stated earlier completion should keep the ISP's in check, not the government. A good example is the major mobile broadband providers here. stopping to offer unlimited data a few years ago. T-Mobile still offered unlimited data so to be competitive the rest of the cellular providers brought back unlimited data. 

Oh right, T-Mobile's "unlimited" plan where you have to pay extra if you want to watch 720p or higher video. T-Mobile which even goes as far as to use deep packet inspection and throttle all video data.  Oh and tethering costs extra.Yeah... Clearly the system is working and net neutrality isn't needed.

Also, that's cellular, not fiber. The barrier to entry is far lower for cellular infrastructure. You can't compare competition for cellular and think it's the same for fiber.

 

Why I care is none of your business, and it's not related to the conversation at all.

[TheCherryKing]

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

That's all fine and good, but the problem is that "proper competition" does not exist when it comes to ISPs in the US. What solution do you suggest to this issue?

 

So you think government regulations is the reason why there is a lack of competition? You don't think it's because of things such as massive buyouts of smaller ISPs, ISPs collaborating to not expand into each others' regions, and an extremely high barrier to entry?

What specific regulations would you like to get rid of and how do you think that would increase competition?

 

Well buying existing fiber is one way of dealing with it, but I was actually thinking of the US government building their own fiber and then renting that to ISPs. No need for hostile takeover of existing fiber. By the way, I am fairly sure they do have the right to do that. It's called eminent domain and it is quite regularly used for things such as building roads.

What objection do you have to the government building their own fibers and renting that out to ISPs?

Please bear in mind that the government is already funding ISPs to build fiber networks. For example California has spend 81 million dollars funding the upgrades of broadband infrastructure.

US ISPs have been given somewhere around 500 billion dollars of tax money in order to upgrade their infrastructure, and they have mostly ignored put it in their own pockets. Imagine what could have been done if the government had built their own fiber networks and offered them to all ISPs instead.

You solve the issue of a lack of fiber, and you solve the issue of ISPs avoiding each others' turfs to create monopolies.

 

Oh right, T-Mobile's "unlimited" plan where you have to pay extra if you want to watch 720p or higher video. T-Mobile which even goes as far as to use deep packet inspection and throttle all video data.  Oh and tethering costs extra.Yeah... Clearly the system is working and net neutrality isn't needed.

Also, that's cellular, not fiber. The barrier to entry is far lower for cellular infrastructure. You can't compare competition for cellular and think it's the same for fiber.

 

Why I care is none of your business, and it's not related to the conversation at all.

Clearly you didn't even read my entire response before responding to the first response. The United States government has used eminent domain but they do not have the right to do that. It is a violation of the fourth amendment. California is an embarrassment to the United States! Verizon offers video streaming in 1080p it is likely the other carriers will eventually do this as well. It's just a matter of time.

Edited November 30, 2017 by wkdpaul
cleaned up

[IntMD]

4 hours ago, deadpaww said:

Canada, the UK, wherver else, they don’t have Net Neutralit and do fine, their internet is just as free and open. The repeal wouls put us back to 2015 internet and in 2015, there were no internet packages, none for 20+ years.

The UK also does have multiple competing ISPs in about 99% of the country though and if one suddenly started any shit, they would be dropped by everyone almost instantly for a different ISP. A lot of the US from the sound of it, purposely through collusion between ISPs or through ridiculous local laws etc. don't have competition.

 

I really don't think there would be much of a problem to be honest if you went to the ISPs and said they have 2 options.

 

1.They can continue with net neutrality.

2. You have to open up whatever cables etc. you have to competition for a reasonable access price to other ISPs and you do not have to abide net neutrality once proper competition is established. Anyone caught colluding in an anti competitive way gets real fines etc.

 

I bet you 100% they'd be going with net neutrality.

[Silentprototipe]

Aight bois, download all your questionable stuff before net neutrality is gone  

[Eduard the weeb]

11 minutes ago, silentprototipe said:

Aight bois, download all your questionable stuff before net neutrality is gone  

agreed.

[Eduard the weeb]

someones face December 14th whether team internet or team cable IDK 

[Tcrumpen]

As i'm in the UK the Net Neutrality vote doesn't affect me but from my understanding this sounds like classic propaganda that was prevalent in many countries during almost every war. Only let the public see the good that we are doing regardless of whether it's true or exaggerated or not

 

The fact that ISPs could limit access (speed wise) to specific sites is scary. Has no-one there every seen ANY kinda of movie like ever, power corrupts people; even if they are already corrupt

[Eduard the weeb]

Just now, Tcrumpen said:

The fact that ISPs could limit access

They can block website they dislike thats why I asked how this site would be affected. The idea of NN repel is that sense it is the ISPs lines technically they can do what they want, but I feel like it the same argument as yeah the bank own your house till you pay of the mortgage but if they just come in and light your house on fire but the bank would still lose the argument. 

[Tcrumpen]

11 minutes ago, Eduard the weeb said:

They can block website they dislike thats why I asked how this site would be affected. The idea of NN repel is that sense it is the ISPs lines technically they can do what they want, but I feel like it the same argument as yeah the bank own your house till you pay of the mortgage but if they just come in and light your house on fire but the bank would still lose the argument. 

This site would most likely be affected, it depends on how "power hungry" each ISP in the US would be and how utilitarian they want to go

[Eduard the weeb]

1 minute ago, Tcrumpen said:

This site would most likely be affected, it depends on how "power hungry" each ISP in the US would be and how utilitarian they want to go

they plan on selling website similar to how they sell TV in packages.

literal depression.jpg_large ( Example what it may be like )

[LAwLz]

4 hours ago, TheCherryKing said:

The United States government has used eminent domain but they do not have the right to do that. It is a violation of the fourth amendment.

Something tells me you haven't read the fourth amendment. Eminent domain is not against the constitution because the fourth amendment specifically says:

Quote

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

As long as the ISPs (or homeowners, or whomever is getting their property taken) gets compensation which is deemed appropriate then it is not against the constitutions.

 

 

4 hours ago, TheCherryKing said:

California is an embarrassment to the United States!

I just used California as an example. Want some more examples?

Texas - 75 millions

Washington - Easily over 100 million dollars.

Florida - Something like 60 million?

 

I could go on but I think you get the point. I have only begun to scratch the surface of the 500 billion dollars I mentioned earlier.

 

 

4 hours ago, TheCherryKing said:

erizon offers video streaming in 1080p it is likely the other carriers will eventually do this as well. It's just a matter of time.

Again, you can't compare cellular carriers with fiber providers. They are two different markets.

 

 

Edit:

Also, if you think ISPs will behave well without regulations then why are you against net neutrality? If you think the ISPs will willingly treat their customers well then a law which says they have to do it won't make a difference. Do you understand what I am saying? It's like saying "I don't think anyone will murder someone, so I suggest we make murder legal".

It seems to me like you have formed your entire opinion on this around the fact that you dislike the government. You haven't come up with a single argument for why you think removing NN would help people, nor have you suggested any alternative way of making sure ISPs won't abuse their customers which they have done time and time again in the past. In fact, your own example of the "market working" has one ISP literally blocking all video streams over 480p unless you pay extra. I am not sure about you, but I don't want to live in a world where I have to pay 25 dollars extra if I want a 720p option on Youtube.

 

And no, I am not attacking you because you are against net neutrality. I am asking you serious questions which you constantly avoid and try to deflect by constantly bringing up that I am Swedish for some reason.

Can you please answer my questions?

[Silentprototipe]

44 minutes ago, Eduard the weeb said:

agreed.

I sure as hell did lol. Why do you think theres about 1.6 GB gone from my micro SD? 

[Eduard the weeb]

7 minutes ago, silentprototipe said:

I sure as hell did lol. Why do you think theres about 1.6 GB gone from my micro SD? 

lol just download more porn becuase you will have to pay for it soon 

[michaelocarroll007]

2 hours ago, Eduard the weeb said:

wouldn't all major ISP be doing it thought making it less suicidal? 

Many places only have access to 1 Option of Internet providers A huge amount of the USA is a monopoly on this so they could still do it without every single one jumping on but you know they will why not? 

[Silentprototipe]

2 minutes ago, Eduard the weeb said:

lol just download more porn becuase you will have to pay for it soon 

Hahahah......Its not porn lol. Im all about dat sweet sweet hentai kek 

[michaelocarroll007]

47 minutes ago, Eduard the weeb said:

They can block website they dislike thats why I asked how this site would be affected. The idea of NN repel is that sense it is the ISPs lines technically they can do what they want, but I feel like it the same argument as yeah the bank own your house till you pay of the mortgage but if they just come in and light your house on fire but the bank would still lose the argument. 

i think it would more be like the bank comming to your house and then charging you everytime you need to open or shut your door. flush the toilet ect. but yeah

[Eduard the weeb]

Just now, michaelocarroll007 said:

i think it would more be like the bank comming to your house and then charging you everytime you need to open or shut your door. flush the toilet ect. but yeah

yeah