FCC orders net neutrality repeal

[potoooooooo]

A lot of state governors are enacting it in their state though, so at least we have that going for us.

 

Thanks Phil Murphy

[Lurick]

Just now, potoooooooo said:

A lot of state governors are enacting it in their state though, so at least we have that going for us.

 

Thanks Phil Murphy

Well, there is the whole thing where Verizon, Spectrum, AT&T, and a few others pushed to have that banned in the text of the repeal.

 

It's obviously being challenged but the fact remains that the text is there to prevent individual states from doing that.

[potoooooooo]

1 minute ago, Lurick said:

Well, there is the whole thing where Verizon, Spectrum, AT&T, and a few others pushed to have that banned in the text of the repeal.

 

It's obviously being challenged but the fact remains that the text is there to prevent individual states from doing that.

Does the hypocrisy never end?

 

The party of state's rights restricting state's rights. I doubt such a clause would hold up in the supreme court.

[Okjoek]

2 minutes ago, Ryujin2003 said:

And I used to think Roadrunner dial up was slow AF.

In online games I would regularly get 300-400 ms ping. Thankfully Runescape was a childhood favorite and wasn't always as critical on connection speed. At the time a game like World of Tanks was un-playable depending on the time of day.

[Lurick]

Just now, potoooooooo said:

Does the hypocrisy never end?

 

The party of state's rights restricting state's rights. I doubt such a clause would hold up in the supreme court.

 

I'm not surprised either, especially considering Pai is now being investigated for his behavior during the repeal as suspected of being too cozy with those the whole repeal would benefit to being with. At this point though only time will tell what this huge mess will spit out at the end =/

[TetraSky]

It's like everyone forgot that these rules were put in place exactly because the ISPs were caught throttling services like Netflix and essentially forcing them to pay a ransom to get back to the normal speed for their users.

Who in their right mind would believe the big ISPs when they say they won't do this anymore.

[Trik'Stari]

1 hour ago, Unimaginative Name said:

The internet grew up perfectly fine without net neutrality. There is enough competition and there exists enough anti-collusion and monopoly laws to naturally mitigate the threat a la carte internet solution. At least in theory. 

Please elaborate. 

Try living in a rural area (which some of us prefer to the crime and traffic overrun urban city centers) then tell me there's enough competition.

 

Out here I have 1 "high speed" ISP that is giving me 10/1Mbps over an ancient phone line, or I can get satellite and NEVER be able to game online, oh and daily data caps.

 

All this for a minimum of $70 a month + BS fees that I cannot opt out of. Life a "phone line" fee even though we don't use the land line.

 

There is no competition. There is only shit, and more shit. My ISP recently ran fiber through the area and promised us that we would be able to upgrade to 20/5, but even though I saw the work trucks wrap up work almost a year ago, we can't get that according to the people on the phone (in India judging by the accent).

 

There is NO competition for most of America.

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, Unimaginative Name said:

Three providers in a market where LITERALLY EVERYBODY is a customer provides plenty of competition. In both of the places where I live, there are 2-4 choices, and the competition is heavy, there is constant price undercutting and it forces large-scale technology improvements across the board. The possible exception would be people who live in BFE and have the option of 10/5 (trust me, it happens). 

Holy shit, if you think you have healthy competition because you have 2-4 choices where "everybody" is a customer, then you don't really understand how competition works.  With more demand and a fair playing field you should have a lot more choices than 2-4.  Australia has something like 8 million landline connections with a choice of 50+ ISP's each.  Now that is healthy competition.   

 

I'm sorry but what you have over there is simply an oligopoly,  You have no choice.

[GDRRiley]

2 hours ago, potoooooooo said:

A lot of state governors are enacting it in their state though, so at least we have that going for us.

not CA. in our odd form we said screw you and are going to try and make it a law. 

Just like so many other issues the federal gov doesn't to shit. 

[Eaglerino]

 

Going to be really interesting when nothing changes, because I don't feel like enacting net neutrality changed anything. My ISP at the time just slapped us with a data cap.

[AresKrieger]

2 hours ago, potoooooooo said:

A lot of state governors are enacting it in their state though, so at least we have that going for us.

 

Thanks Phil Murphy

2 hours ago, potoooooooo said:

Does the hypocrisy never end?

 

The party of state's rights restricting state's rights. I doubt such a clause would hold up in the supreme court.

Actually it would hold up as federal law always trumps state law so long as the law isn't specifically banned from being made by the constitution it's legal, granted I am generally for states rights over federal rights but the civil war essentially decided this 150 years ago. The only way that doesn't happen is if the FCC exceeded its authority but this seems to be within those bonds, now congress could do something about it but they can't even agree to fund the government properly so expecting them to even mention this in a serious non pandering way is ludicrous.

 

Regardless net neutrality isn't the issue, monopolization we need Teddy Roosevelt 2.0

 

[Brooksie359]

4 hours ago, Unimaginative Name said:

The internet grew up perfectly fine without net neutrality. There is enough competition and there exists enough anti-collusion and monopoly laws to naturally mitigate the threat a la carte internet solution. At least in theory. 

Please elaborate. 

There are alot of places with as little as 1 or 2 options for internet. I know I only have the option of 1 and it kinda sucks. So the whole theory of competition working things out in a free market is great and all but the problem is there is a sever lack of it. I mean I actually wouldn't be opposed with the free market regulating these sorts of things because it would give incentives to isps to not be awful companies. With the way things currently are there is slim chance that competition would regulate the isps. 

[Brooksie359]

41 minutes ago, AresKrieger said:

Actually it would hold up as federal law always trumps state law so long as the law isn't specifically banned from being made by the constitution it's legal, granted I am generally for states rights over federal rights but the civil war essentially decided this 150 years ago. The only way that doesn't happen is if the FCC exceeded its authority but this seems to be within those bonds, now congress could do something about it but they can't even agree to fund the government properly so expecting them to even mention this in a serious non pandering way is ludicrous.

 

Regardless net neutrality isn't the issue, monopolization we need Teddy Roosevelt 2.0

 

State governments can do what they want and it would be a fight between state and federal law which would probably go to the courts. I mean weed is federally illegal but is legal in some states so it is possible that the states can still great laws regarding this. 

[Brooksie359]

45 minutes ago, AresKrieger said:

Actually it would hold up as federal law always trumps state law so long as the law isn't specifically banned from being made by the constitution it's legal, granted I am generally for states rights over federal rights but the civil war essentially decided this 150 years ago. The only way that doesn't happen is if the FCC exceeded its authority but this seems to be within those bonds, now congress could do something about it but they can't even agree to fund the government properly so expecting them to even mention this in a serious non pandering way is ludicrous.

 

Regardless net neutrality isn't the issue, monopolization we need Teddy Roosevelt 2.0

 

The other thing you don't take into account is that the fcc is not Congress and can not make laws in the same way Congress has so I am not sure it would hold up in court if the fcc said that states can't create laws regarding their own state regardless what it is about. 

[Mooshi]

4 hours ago, Unimaginative Name said:

There is enough competition

Where? I'd love to see this mythical competition. Here it's either slow unreliable CenturyLink or Comcast. I'm sure there is dialup and satellite, but those aren't real connections in our digital world with high bandwidth and data allowance requirements.

 

Cellular data from carriers are also limited and were never intended to replace home internet.

[bcredeur97]

I'll never understand why Louisiana of all places we literally have 3 providers we can get gigabit internet from... and we have it currently with AT&T...

Fast lanes and stuff are going to stink tho if AT&T incorporates them (I'm sure they will) such a step backwards...

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, Mooshi said:

Where? I'd love to see this mythical competition.

It's down here in Australia.  Come and get some sweet competition.

[ScubaSteve404]

6 hours ago, Ryujin2003 said:

We currently have Verizon FiOS. And frankly, that's all I need.. had them once, too an 8 year break after moving (because they weren't available) and finally moved again, and choose a place that had Verizon. My only requirement for location...

I feel bad about the DSL. We have a company contacted with the state to provide internet in the farm lands where there isn't cable. Seriously $20 a month for unlimited around 15mbps via microwave towers.

 

Took me nearly a day to download Fallout 4.

 

FeelsBadMan

[DrMacintosh]

Ajit Pie is apparently under investigation right now:

 

[leadeater]

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

It's down here in Australia.  Come and get some sweet competition.

Nah, NZ would be a better pick if you purely want good internet in a country in the middle of nowhere.

[Dabombinable]

9 hours ago, Ryujin2003 said:

We currently have Verizon FiOS. And frankly, that's all I need.. had them once, too an 8 year break after moving (because they weren't available) and finally moved again, and choose a place that had Verizon. My only requirement for location...

I feel bad about the DSL. We have a company contacted with the state to provide internet in the farm lands where there isn't cable. Seriously $20 a month for unlimited around 15mbps via microwave towers.

 

Took me nearly a day to download Fallout 4.

 

You've never downloaded a 50GB+ game at 5-6Mbps before have you....

[leadeater]

40 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

You've never downloaded a 50GB+ game at 5-6Mbps before have you....

I have, omfg days. Not only that you can't do jack while it's downloading. So glad I don't have to deal with that crap anymore.

[AlTech]

10 hours ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Press F to pay respects.

Hopefully congress is able to overturn this and put an end to Pai's plans to serve ISPs instead of the Public.

 

Edit: Lol. 23 States are suing the FCC now meaning this can be overturned if congress really cares about what the people want.

[LAwLz]

11 hours ago, Max_Settings said:

I’m in favor of this. The repeal is not perfect, there need to be new regulations in place. But if I had to pick between the current regulations and non of them, I’m going for the repeal.

Can you please explain what you did not like with the previous rules, and what you would like changed for these new ones you say need to be in place?

 

 

10 hours ago, Unimaginative Name said:

Three providers in a market where LITERALLY EVERYBODY is a customer provides plenty of competition. In both of the places where I live, there are 2-4 choices, and the competition is heavy, there is constant price undercutting and it forces large-scale technology improvements across the board. The possible exception would be people who live in BFE and have the option of 10/5 (trust me, it happens). 

You're in the small minority. Scroll down to page 6 and you will see what the average in the US is.

Only 26% of US households have 3 or more ISPs to choose from if they want to get 25Mbps downloads or faster.

If we look at how many households have three or more options for 100Mbps connections then that number falls to about 2%.

 

To have ISP options and competition is rare in the US.

Nobody in their right mind will think this is a healthy environment for competition.

 

 

8 hours ago, mr moose said:

Holy shit, if you think you have healthy competition because you have 2-4 choices where "everybody" is a customer, then you don't really understand how competition works.  With more demand and a fair playing field you should have a lot more choices than 2-4.  Australia has something like 8 million landline connections with a choice of 50+ ISP's each.  Now that is healthy competition.   

 

I'm sorry but what you have over there is simply an oligopoly,  You have no choice.

It seems like he also counts satellite providers into that 2-4 number, and satellite internet is not something I would even count as an option.

[paddy-stone]

I grew up fine without internet at all, it didn't exist... doesn't mean we should go BACK to that. I really think in this day and age that every country and ISP should be striving for better advancement of speeds and coverage, anything less is short-sighted. Look at Sweden? they just announced that they will be having a tariff that allows 10Gb to the public, and 100Gb to business and for the equivalent to $80 a month. That is what they all should be striving towards IMO, data usage is only going to increase, and even if you can't make use of the 10Gb, it means more people could connect at a lower rate in larger households/shared households.. and for $80 is awesome.

[edit] just clarifying, the %80 is for the public, not the business.