FCC Unveils Plan To Repeal Net Neutrality Rules

[XenosTech]

11 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Why eventually? That makes no sense, I can sign up to any cellular provider here and get around 4G 70Mbps in towns/cities and stream anything I like from anyone. It's just data and cellular providers are not allowed to treat it differently to anything else, we have rules to prevent that kind of thing so charging for video streaming or higher quality settings just isn't allowed.

It's one of the many thing I don't understand about america. I get the same here also, I buy 2 gbs for a whole month and I can watch anything I see fit on it as long as I still have data or credit on my phone.

[RAM555789]

This is a big concern to me, and the whole situation is getting a bit crazy. What do you guys think is going to happen, and how do you think we should respond to this as a community who loves a free internet. If you don't know what net neutrality is, it a basic sense, it means I pay for my internet and then I can do whatever I want with that internet, (as long as its legal) whether it's gaming, youtube, amazon, ect. Without net neutrality, I would have to pay extra to be able to access sites like youtube and netflix, then maybe a separate charge would allow me to access amazon and newegg, and another charge would allow me to access paypal, and banking sites and another charge would allow me to play games online. It's a pretty big concern to me and if you don't know about it, try checking it out.

[Enderman]

 

[Thermosman]

Its gonna get voted on, get passed 3 vs 2, then get challenged in court a lot, so it wont take place for a while

[mmCharles]

 

This is what the internet will become if net neutrality is repealed. How some right wing libertarians can support Pai baffles me..

[Jman]

Honestly its hard to tell with this crazy political climate we've had over the year.  I will say that the amount of back-lash that it has received is quite promising.  A few years ago it seemed like the people who actually cared were just "techies" and large websites.  This time around, there is a lot of what I would consider mainstream following of the issue, which is great.  Many celebrities have come out and shown their support.  Also there have been some recent reports that millions of the emails that the FCC has claimed are from US citizens who are in support of removing net neutrality are either from dead people or russian emails...  It's a very sad situation that clearly only benefits the ISP giants who have the FCC politicians in their pockets.  I hope that there will be enough backlash from people that they will have no choice but to accept, but only time will tell.  I sure hope for the sake of a free internet and our futures that this will not happen. 

[deadpaww]

1 minute ago, mmCharles said:

 

This is what the internet will become if net neutrality is repealed. How some right wing libertarians can support Pai baffles me..

No. I’m tired of people showing and saying stuff like this. Net Neutrality repeal won’t change the internet anywhere close to this. This right here is a phone plan, of a different country, this is not internet. The repeal is a repeal of 2015 laws, we spent 20+ years without net neutrality without only a couple isolated incidents of sneaky business that ended up getting handled. Internet isn’t doomed, you won’t need to pay for packages, websites if legal, won’t be blocked. THAT is propoganda based on a worst case scenerio that is not at all realistic as to what an actual ISP would do. Don’t be scared of the repeal if it goes through, most change you’ll see is actually increased speeds of internet and perhaps a bit more money for faster speeds than what we can get now because with NN, speeds are slowed down due to shared tunnels.

 

The internet. Will. Be. Fine

[2FA]

8 minutes ago, mmCharles said:

 

This is what the internet will become if net neutrality is repealed. How some right wing libertarians can support Pai baffles me..

If you're going to use that image, at least be aware that it is for cellular plans extending data.

[GDRRiley]

2 minutes ago, deadpaww said:

No. I’m tired of people showing and saying stuff like this. Net Neutrality repeal won’t change the internet anywhere close to this. This right here is a phone plan, of a different country, this is not internet. The repeal is a repeal of 2015 laws, we spent 20+ years without net neutrality without only a couple isolated incidents of sneaky business that ended up getting handled. Internet isn’t doomed, you won’t need to pay for packages, websites if legal, won’t be blocked. THAT is propoganda based on a worst case scenerio that is not at all realistic as to what an actual ISP would do. Don’t be scared of the repeal if it goes through, most change you’ll see is actually increased speeds of internet and perhaps a bit more money for faster speeds than what we can get now because with NN, speeds are slowed down due to shared tunnels.

 

The internet. Will. Be. Fine

it is an internet phone plan. 

No we had dozens on cases in the US. It is realistic with how money hogging ISPs are. 

 

[RAM555789]

[mmCharles]

10 minutes ago, DeadEyePsycho said:

If you're going to use that image, at least be aware that it is for cellular plans extending data.

It's a worst case scenario comparison.

[deadpaww]

1 minute ago, GDRRiley said:

it is an internet phone plan. 

No we had dozens on cases in the US. It is realistic with how money hogging ISPs are. 

 

Even if that’s true, 12 cases for 20+ of attempted throttling or whatever, is still low numbers but I would like some proof of that claim.

 

And yes, ISP’s are money hungry but repealing these laws won’t turn them evil, I assure you. They may be big, money hungry, so on but they won’t turn into monsters who limit the entire internet for the sake of squeezing money out of you. Not only is that a suicide market wise but that is not realistic. They would make far more revenue giving even higher speeds for higher pay, which would be a very fair deal. Some ISP’s are expensive, some are cheap, some are a balance. Same as phone plans.

 

To assume just because there is no law that says everything must be done equally, means that ISP’s all the sudden creat stupid internet packages and block websites is not logical. That would also be followed by law suits I assure you.

 

Net Neutrality is not the law of the internet. The law of the internet doesn’t exist as much as people probably think because it’s always changing and expanding. So what would happen is an ISP gets an idea to do something a little shady and a lawsuit comes up or the FTC steps in, then from that, guidlines are established through a case by case basis.

 

I’m 100% for laws for the internet but I’m also in support of freedom for ISP’s to innovate and experiment because that can help the internet achieve it’s highest possible speed and expansion. 

 

I understand the concerns, really, but people are scared of a very unlikely outcom that was basically propganda and media fear tactics of tv media. There are reasons to worry, yes, but as far as the internet freedom goes, we will be fine.

 

I have full faith that if someone was to be shady, wrong, whatever, the consumers, the FTC, the law, will step in and do what is right for freedom and fair business

[GDRRiley]

Just now, deadpaww said:

I’m 100% for laws for the internet but I’m also in support of freedom for ISP’s to innovate and experiment because that can help the internet achieve it’s highest possible speed and expansion. 

what?? there is really not much you could experiment with other than caching highly used files/sites. everything else is just down to bandwidth. 

[deadpaww]

Just now, mmCharles said:

It's a worst case scenario comparison.

Which is what makes it rediculous imo. To have that as an argument is very silly. If someone was to say “are computers safe?” and someone posts a picture of a pc catching on fire as their argument or say “A pc can blow up” that’s a horrible argument because it’s literally a worst case scenerio which means it’s very unlikely.

[deadpaww]

2 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

what?? there is really not much you could experiment with other than caching highly used files/sites. everything else is just down to bandwidth. 

If you think the internet can’t be experimented on these days, I think you misunderstand the power of the internet and what we don’t know now but what may be possible in 5+, 10+, 30+ years. 

[2FA]

2 minutes ago, deadpaww said:

Even if that’s true, 12 cases for 20+ of attempted throttling or whatever, is still low numbers but I would like some proof of that claim.

 

And yes, ISP’s are money hungry but repealing these laws won’t turn them evil, I assure you. They may be big, money hungry, so on but they won’t turn into monsters who limit the entire internet for the sake of squeezing money out of you. Not only is that a suicide market wise but that is not realistic. They would make far more revenue giving even higher speeds for higher pay, which would be a very fair deal. Some ISP’s are expensive, some are cheap, some are a balance. Same as phone plans.

 

To assume just because there is no law that says everything must be done equally, means that ISP’s all the sudden creat stupid internet packages and block websites is not logical. That would also be followed by law suits I assure you.

 

Net Neutrality is not the law of the internet. The law of the internet doesn’t exist as much as people probably think because it’s always changing and expanding. So what would happen is an ISP gets an idea to do something a little shady and a lawsuit comes up or the FTC steps in, then from that, guidlines are established through a case by case basis.

 

I’m 100% for laws for the internet but I’m also in support of freedom for ISP’s to innovate and experiment because that can help the internet achieve it’s highest possible speed and expansion. 

 

I understand the concerns, really, but people are scared of a very unlikely outcom that was basically propganda and media fear tactics of tv media. There are reasons to worry, yes, but as far as the internet freedom goes, we will be fine.

 

I have full faith that if someone was to be shady, wrong, whatever, the consumers, the FTC, the law, will step in and do what is right for freedom and fair business

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/05/title-ii-hasnt-hurt-network-investment-according-to-the-isps-themselves/

 

Also the FTC has no power over them unless they don't offer fair pricing to all, better wording would be offering similar prices to all.

[Maxxtraxx]

The following Quote is from an article discussing net neutrality with a man named Bill Frezza, who began his career at Bell labs when the telephone industry had the same problematic(opinion) regulations as net neutrality. He lived through, worked though and saw first handedly the stark difference in the development of the phone system before and after the Bell Monopoly breakup.

 

On an observational note I think and hope that there is something everyone here can agree upon, we all desire better internet infrastructure and continued investment in and advancement of the technology and hardware that makes up this service and giant product that is the internet.

 

The biggest difference that we all seem to have is exactly how much input the governing authorities in the US specifically should have. My observations are that the majority of this forum is left leaning in their outlook and values which almost inherently means greater government intrusion and regulation where as most dissenting voices(myself included) perfer a hands off approach as much as possible, believing that the entire system as a whole can do much better by promoting a free market as much as possible.

 

We all want the same thing, we differ in how we think that can/should be accomplished, being on one side or the other does not make anyone evil, bad or stupid... To treat someone as such simply destroys any ability to hold discussion and takes on the juvenile tendencies of a child(or the American news media)to shut down productive discussion.

 

The story he has to tell is that the Internet as we know it was born out of the breakup of the AT&T monopoly in 1982. Specifically, the Internet grew out of rejecting the very policies that are the backbone of “net neutrality.”

 

Quotation Begins:

 

Progress requires inequality. If you don’t give entrepreneurs the ability to become unequal—not just get rich themselves, but they have to make their customers unequal, they’ve got to give their customers commercial advantage or life advantage. That’s what drives progress. If you take that out of the equation, if you say all traffic has to be treated equal, all customers have to be treated equal—first of all, capital investment in the network is going to go down. We’ve already seen some of that. But so is innovation. Why would you want to give that up?

That’s why we should be thrilled to see Internet service providers contemplating“Internet fast lanes” to charge extra for massive data users like Netflix. This would set off a gold rush of investment in infrastructure and innovation that would eventually bring us all much high data transmission speeds. That’s what the actual history of the Internet shows. The exotic, exorbitantly expensive new technologies of a few years ago eventually become the cheap and ubiquitous technologies of today.

This is such a commonplace experience that it’s really astonishing that anyone in the tech industry has let themselves be bamboozled by the notion that we’d all be much better off with the business model of a sclerotic, highly regulated public utility.

 

Quotation ends.

 

Article here

 

And a interview with Ajit Pai himself on the very topic and why he feels the way he does can be found: Here

Edited December 1, 2017 by Maxxtraxx
Quoting

[Lurick]

7 minutes ago, deadpaww said:

I’m 100% for laws for the internet but I’m also in support of freedom for ISP’s to innovate and experiment because that can help the internet achieve it’s highest possible speed and expansion. 

 

I understand the concerns, really, but people are scared of a very unlikely outcom that was basically propganda and media fear tactics of tv media. There are reasons to worry, yes, but as far as the internet freedom goes, we will be fine.

 

I have full faith that if someone was to be shady, wrong, whatever, the consumers, the FTC, the law, will step in and do what is right for freedom and fair business

You must not know American ISPs. AT&T literally wrote and handed over a law to legislators in Tennessee to be voted on and which was almost approved. When asked about the law they readily admitted they didn't read it, understand it, and reading between the lines you can see that they frankly didn't care. The legislators are in their pockets and they will do whatever their masters command. These are the same ISPs who've been given hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars by the government to stimulate growth and upgrades of their network and instead of doing so they flip of the customers, jack up prices, do nothing to their network, and ask for more tax breaks from the government.

 

ISPs are literally colluding to avoid competition and will do anything they can to stop and/or slow down any newcomer who dares enter their market and cause a commotion (eg: Google Fiber and the likes)

[deadpaww]

1 minute ago, DeadEyePsycho said:

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/05/title-ii-hasnt-hurt-network-investment-according-to-the-isps-themselves/

 

Also the FTC has no power over them unless they don't offer fair pricing to all, better wording would be offering similar prices to all.

FTC is suing AT&T atm for unlimited data throttling.

 

Also I’m no expert but Net Neutrality has pros and it has cons. A free market has pros and it has cons. I’m not here to say which is better, time will tell.

 

However, my wholeeeee argument here is that whether NN is repealed or not, the internet is not doomed, we are fine, porn will still be free and gaming will still be great......and money eating, screw steam sales ;_;

[Lurick]

Just now, deadpaww said:

However, my wholeeeee argument here is that whether NN is repealed or not, the internet is not doomed, we are fine, porn will still be free and gaming will still be great......and money eating, screw steam sales ;_;

Steam sales are evil and must be stopped. This I agree with

[deadpaww]

Just now, Lurick said:

You must not know American ISPs. AT&T literally wrote and handed over a law to legislators in Tennessee to be voted on and which was almost approved. When asked about the law they readily admitted they didn't read it, understand it, and reading between the lines you can see that they frankly didn't care. These are the same ISPs who've been given hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars by the government to stimulate growth and upgrades of their network and instead of doing so they flip of the customers, jack up prices, do nothing to their network, and ask for more tax breaks from the government.

 

ISPs are literally colluding to avoid competition and will do anything they can to stop and/or slow down any newcomer who dares enter their market and cause a commotion (eg: Google Fiber and the likes)

As I just posted to another, there are pros and cons here on both sides of the argument, I’m literally arguing in the middle myself. My point is we will be fine. The internet will be fine. ISP’s, Apple, Medical care, the government, what have you, will always have greed to it, always, it’s money that a lot of companies want. Though we will be fine. 

[deadpaww]

1 minute ago, Lurick said:

Steam sales are evil and must be stopped. This I agree with

Steam Neutrality pls

[2FA]

13 minutes ago, deadpaww said:

FTC is suing AT&T atm for unlimited data throttling.

 

Also I’m no expert but Net Neutrality has pros and it has cons. A free market has pros and it has cons. I’m not here to say which is better, time will tell.

 

However, my wholeeeee argument here is that whether NN is repealed or not, the internet is not doomed, we are fine, porn will still be free and gaming will still be great......and money eating, screw steam sales ;_;

They're suing not because of the throttling itself but because they lied about it.

 

3% of Americans have access to 3 or more broadband providers. Not exactly what I would call a free market.

[dalekphalm]

16 minutes ago, Maxxtraxx said:

The following Quote is from an article discussing net neutrality with a man named Bill Frezza, who began his career at Bell labs when the telephone industry had the same problematic(opinion) regulations as net neutrality. He lived through, worked though and saw first handedly the stark difference in the development of the phone system before and after the Bell Monopoly breakup.

 

On an observational note I think and hope that there is something everyone here can agree upon, we all desire better internet infrastructure and continued investment in and advancement of the technology and hardware that makes up this service and giant product that is the internet.

 

The biggest difference that we all seem to have is exactly how much input the governing authorities in the US specifically should have. My observations are that the majority of this forum is left leaning in their outlook and values which almost inherently means greater government intrusion and regulation where as most dissenting voices(myself included) perfer a hands off approach as much as possible, believing that the entire system as a whole can do much better by promoting a free market as much as possible.

 

We all want the same thing, we differ in how we think that can/should be accomplished, being on one side or the other does not make anyone evil, bad or stupid... To treat someone as such simply destroys any ability to hold discussion and takes on the juvenile tendencies of a child(or the American news media)to shut down productive discussion.

 

The story he has to tell is that the Internet as we know it was born out of the breakup of the AT&T monopoly in 1982. Specifically, the Internet grew out of rejecting the very policies that are the backbone of “net neutrality.”

 

Progress requires inequality. If you don’t give entrepreneurs the ability to become unequal—not just get rich themselves, but they have to make their customers unequal, they’ve got to give their customers commercial advantage or life advantage. That’s what drives progress. If you take that out of the equation, if you say all traffic has to be treated equal, all customers have to be treated equal—first of all, capital investment in the network is going to go down. We’ve already seen some of that. But so is innovation. Why would you want to give that up?

That’s why we should be thrilled to see Internet service providers contemplating“Internet fast lanes” to charge extra for massive data users like Netflix. This would set off a gold rush of investment in infrastructure and innovation that would eventually bring us all much high data transmission speeds. That’s what the actual history of the Internet shows. The exotic, exorbitantly expensive new technologies of a few years ago eventually become the cheap and ubiquitous technologies of today.

This is such a commonplace experience that it’s really astonishing that anyone in the tech industry has let themselves be bamboozled by the notion that we’d all be much better off with the business model of a sclerotic, highly regulated public utility.

 

Article here

 

And a interview with Ajit Pai himself on the very topic and why he feels the way he does can be found: Here

Can you put text not written by yourself into quotations so it's clearer what are your opinions, and what are opinions of the person you are quoting?

 

As for his argument, I'd argue that we should look at how Europe is doing, internet wise. Many of them are heavy on regulations, but still have massive investment and are getting speeds that make the US look sad.

[deadpaww]

15 minutes ago, DeadEyePsycho said:

They're suing not because of the throttling itself but because they lied about it.

 

3% of Americans have access to 3 or more broadband providers. Not exactly what I would call a free market.

You're saying that while we have NN though...so that isn't something that NN is fixing.