FCC orders net neutrality repeal

[Blademaster91]

8 hours ago, Eaglerino said:

 

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.

I feel like more govt regulation would just encourage ISP's to add more data caps,faster ISP's dont matter when you're on a shitty data cap. A friend of mine has 50/15mb cable,yet it has a 250gb cap so you can't even enjoy netflix & download games without worrying about going over the limit. I only have 10/1 DSL but I can freely use the connection i have. The ISP's had the chance years ago with the 1996 telecommunication act funded by the govt to improve access yet here we are with only 1-2 choices that usually suck either way. The access isn't the real problem,adding more govt regulation when the govt cant even manage itself right doesn't help the monopoly ISP's fucking everyone over.

13 minutes ago, paddy-stone said:

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.

Interesting how many non-Americans assume that the US can just be like a smaller country and have 10Gb everywhere,would be great, but it would take billions in investment the ISP's aren't going to invest in and would love to put heavy data caps on anyways,even Google gave up on expanding their fiber network outside a few large cities.

[Dabombinable]

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

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.

Its even worse when your trying to upload something...and the upload speed is limited to 1Mbps. And uploading even near that rate drops the download speed to dialup levels....

And apparently people only need ADSL......

[paddy-stone]

4 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

Interesting how many non-Americans assume that the US can just be like a smaller country and have 10Gb everywhere,would be great, but it would take billions in investment the ISP's aren't going to invest in and would love to put heavy data caps on anyways,even Google gave up on expanding their fiber network outside a few large cities.

I didn't mention the US specifically.. I just said that we all should be striving towards that goal, we're going to need it someday.

[Blademaster91]

2 minutes ago, paddy-stone said:

I didn't mention the US specifically.. I just said that we all should be striving towards that goal, we're going to need it someday.

Yeah I agree though, 20/10 should be a minimum by now, and something like 5/1 being a basic right to have for those who can't afford it as internet is something everyone should have by now.

[LAwLz]

17 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

Interesting how many non-Americans assume that the US can just be like a smaller country and have 10Gb everywhere,would be great, but it would take billions in investment the ISP's aren't going to invest in and would love to put heavy data caps on anyways,even Google gave up on expanding their fiber network outside a few large cities.

Size is not a valid argument for not building infrastructure. What you need to do is break it down to smaller geographical areas.

You're basically trying to justify bad infrastructure is New York by saying it costs too much to lay down cables in the Mojave Desert.

 

The cost per FTTH is far lower in many parts of the US compared to Sweden because of a much higher population density. How about starting with those areas?

[Urishima]

Consider the following:

 

[Valentyn]

12 hours ago, leadeater said:

Wow 4 choices, everyone in my country has a choice of a minimum of 15 and there are a lot more than that. We are a tiny nation of 4.7 million so why do you have less options than I have?

 

If I limit that list to the truly large ISPs then every person has access to 10.

Ireland doesn't have that many; but the darn Government run Electricity board recently started laying their own Fibre under scheme called SIRO.
https://siro.ie/

They then partner with any willing ISP in the area to supply actual true Fibre to the Home; where as the previous "fibre" the majority, and I had capped out at 70-80Mb; and was just Fibre to the cabinet.

I was reamed by high prices; terrible quality; and constant area faults; so much so I nearly lost my job; as I work for a tech company from home.

The ESB, came in with SIRO; and now I pay €45 a month for rock solid 150Mb; and it usually average 155-160Mb. Where as before I was paying €145 for 70Mb; that was extremely unreliable; and suffered from line contention.

 I cannot for the life of me understand anyone in the USA that applauds or likes their "competition" where the market is completely segmented off between companies so they don't have to really compete. Never mind them stifling local ISP development; and innovation.

[Doobeedoo]

Start downloading internet. 

[asus killer]

just wait and see. Either it's overblown reaction from NN lovers or the end of the internet as we all know it and changing for the worst.

In the end you all get to win, you either get a better internet as Pai proposes or finally proves NN is necessary and this futile discussion is over. Then change the government and get NN back.

 

 

[Guest The Viking]

and then we get floded with all this stuff confussing the hell out of the european customer, just to discover that we actually have our own net neutrality rules......

 

competition in the US doesn't work. Look at europe, we have dozens of operators for mobile for example, and it took legislation from the EC (years of work!) to get free roaming implemented.

 

Meanwhile in brussels, I can choose from... oh great, 2 operators that offer the exact same contract. Both with capped speeds and datacap. Yay. Competition? Telecoms and ISPs just aim to make as much money as possible in the laziest way possible. At least i only pay 40e/month for 50mb/s and 500gb of data...

[Eduard the weeb]

15 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. 

First off that is correct, but when NN was put in place, those type of practices were being to happen, but the point is that majority of Americans are stuck with 1 or 2 ISP so when there ISP decided they wanna fuck you sideways your other option could be doing the same thing or be non-existent .

 

also for some context the guy who created the internet hates the idea of a repeal so keep that in mind.

[Eduard the weeb]

4 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

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.

yeah most likely congress will win more seats this year because the Party in power always lose seats, and also with younger Americans becoming more liberal if the Democrats can get people out to vote in mid terms which they have been bad at in the past, they will win. 

[jtmoseley]

15 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. 

That's completely false. There is not nearly enough competition in the internet service provider field to say that it is competitive. If anything it is the opposite, and for small towns like the one I live in, that would be a disaster.

To provide some context:

 

I live in a small town. ~15000 people, and in kentucky. There are 2 main ISP's in my area, and both hold around 50 percent of the city, but in different areas. If I wanted to switch, the only way I could is by going with expensive non-local options. Internet is not something you can boycott, if one of those companies rise prices, so will the other, and so on... Also keep in mind it is extremely expensive to put wires down in a place that already has them via another company. It isn't a competitive field, and that is why it should be classified as a utility... There just isn't enough competition between companies in smaller areas. 

 

Internet is also already expensive for us... It wouldn't be great if it rose anymore. 12 megabit internet is around 50 dollars. 

 

Especially when the head of the ISP in my area is known as a terrible money-hungry guy... The community hates him, but we have no other options. Just keep that in mind next time this topic comes up.

[Eduard the weeb]

Personally I just hate the idea of giving a ISP so much power and controlling whether or not serves I pay for EX netflix, spotify, steam, LTT could be blocked just because AT&T wants ________ competitor to beat them sucks, and also its not like AT&T is doing that great either the FIBER we pay for doesn't work, we have network drops, they have been super rude to us, etc it kinda just sucks ass

[zramsey11]

15 hours ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Press F to pay respects.

F

[Master Disaster]

15 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. 

And the video game market grew up without Lootboxes and microtransactions too, you give these corporation an inch and they'll take the universe and still want more.

 

Anyway they can do what they want, nothing is final until Mr Pai explains to a Judge why he decided to ignore the public 80/20 split in favour of keeping NN in place when his organisation is bound by law to take public opinion into account when creating new laws.

 

If the courts decide that Mr Pai didn't follow his public duty then they can overturn the repeal in its entirety and force the FCC to start the entire process again.

[Tcrumpen]

16 hours ago, Okjoek said:

Source:

https://www.teletrader.com/fcc-orders-net-neutrality-repeal/news/details/42288522?internal=1

 

Quotes from article:

"The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) ruled in favor of repealing net neutrality on Thursday, following the vote on December 14 to roll back the rules which prevent providers from blocking or slowing down internet content, or offer "fast lanes" to websites in exchange for money."

 

"The FCC, led by Chair Ajit Pai published the "Restoring Internet Freedom Order" in the Federal Register, with the effective date set for April 23."

 

My opinion:

Me? I'm just making sure I download and backed up all of my "legally acquired" media.

 

Correct me if i'm wrong but aren't the FCC trying to get rid of Net Neutrality again after having the exact same vote a few months ago?

 

"Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is the definition of insanity" - Albert Einstein (Paraphrasing)

[Blademaster91]

33 minutes ago, Eduard the weeb said:

First off that is correct, but when NN was put in place, those type of practices were being to happen, but the point is that majority of Americans are stuck with 1 or 2 ISP so when there ISP decided they wanna fuck you sideways your other option could be doing the same thing or be non-existent .

 

also for some context the guy who created the internet hates the idea of a repeal so keep that in mind.

NN was in place and it didn't do anything to solve the ISP monopoly, NN won't fix anything unless companies like ATT,Comcast & Verizon are split up like telephone companies were before.

21 minutes ago, Eduard the weeb said:

Personally I just hate the idea of giving a ISP so much power and controlling whether or not serves I pay for EX netflix, spotify, steam, LTT could be blocked just because AT&T wants ________ competitor to beat them sucks, and also its not like AT&T is doing that great either the FIBER we pay for doesn't work, we have network drops, they have been super rude to us, etc it kinda just sucks ass

I'd rather the government not have that power to block things they don't like either,bureaucrats and legislators would exploit that power to block sites that don't fit their agenda.

[Sauron]

16 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. 

There are places in the US where "broadband" is 5Mb/s. So no, I would say it didn't grow up "fine" and, since there are other rules in place that enforce a monopoly of the current 3 or 4 ISP giants in most of the country, competition is non existant. In a lot of areas you have to choose between, say, verizon or no internet at all. Net neutrality was put in place specifically because ISPs were taking advantage of their position.

[Sauron]

10 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

NN was in place and it didn't do anything to solve the ISP monopoly, NN won't fix anything unless companies like ATT,Comcast & Verizon are split up like telephone companies were before.

So why don't they do THAT instead of repealing NN? Just because it doesn't solve every single problem with ISPs doesn't mean NN is useless, or that repealing it will be positive in the current state of affairs. And of course it's a retorical question, the FCC doesn't do that because Pai is bought and paid for by his ISP sugar daddies and the Trump administration doesn't care enough to do something about it as long as they have his political support.

11 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

I'd rather the government not have that power to block things they don't like either,bureaucrats and legislators would exploit that power to block sites that don't fit their agenda.

Net neutrality prevents that as well.

[pyrojoe34]

25 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

I'd rather the government not have that power to block things they don't like either,bureaucrats and legislators would exploit that power to block sites that don't fit their agenda.

If you think that’s what net neutrality is then you’ve been fooled by misinformation campaigns. Net neutrality does not give the government power to block sites at all, it just says that all data needs to be treated the same so that certain data can NOT be blocked or throttled.

[Blademaster91]

11 minutes ago, Sauron said:

So why don't they do THAT instead of repealing NN? Just because it doesn't solve every single problem with ISPs doesn't mean NN is useless, or that repealing it will be positive in the current state of affairs. And of course it's a retorical question, the FCC doesn't do that because Pai is bought and paid for by his ISP sugar daddies and the Trump administration doesn't care enough to do something about it as long as they have his political support.

Net neutrality prevents that as well.

Pai was also put in place by Obama too,but i'm trying to stay apolitical here. Either way the govt profits from these ISPs having their monopolies, NN didn't fix any of that,and you can't guarantee that NN will prevent corruption when the US govt is ubiquitous for colluding and their own congress cant even manage the spending budget.

15 minutes ago, Sauron said:

There are places in the US where "broadband" is 5Mb/s. So no, I would say it didn't grow up "fine" and, since there are other rules in place that enforce a monopoly of the current 3 or 4 ISP giants in most of the country, competition is non existant. In a lot of areas you have to choose between, say, verizon or no internet at all. Net neutrality was put in place specifically because ISPs were taking advantage of their position.

If you've ever been stuck with dial-up 5Mb/s is fine compared to almost or no internet at all.

[Sauron]

Just now, Blademaster91 said:

Pai was also put in place by Obama too,but i'm trying to stay apolitical here

He became part of the FCC during the Obama administration, but he was requested by the republican party. From wikipedia:

Quote

In 2011, Pai was then nominated for a Republican Party position on the Federal Communications Commission by President Barack Obama at the recommendation of Minority leader Mitch McConnell.

And it was Trump who made him chairman and gave him the power to do what he wanted. Pai is a republican yes man, the only reason he was there before Trump is that all governments have to come to compromises with the minority to some degree.

3 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

Either way the govt profits from these ISPs having their monopolies, NN didn't fix any of that,and you can't guarantee that NN will prevent corruption when the US govt is ubiquitous for colluding and their own congress cant even manage the spending budget.

Again, this is not the point and it never has been, and just because it doesn't solve this particular issue it doesn't mean it's useless or that removing it is in any way positive. It's like saying that the ban on slavery isn't going to solve political corruption so we might as well repeal it... it doesn't work that way.

6 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

If you've ever been stuck with dial-up 5Mb/s is fine compared to almost or no internet at all.

So "it's better than dial-up" is the best you can come up with to defend that behaviour? And I suppose if the speed was dial-up you'd say it's better than having no connection? It's ridiculous that 5Mb/s (or even lower) is sold as "broadband" with matching prices. There are many countries that you might consider less technologically advanced compared to the US that have better broadband offerings than that. And it's not even rural areas I'm talking about, because in that case I could understand a lack of infrastructure (although not the prices).

[Blademaster91]

1 hour ago, Sauron said:

He became part of the FCC during the Obama administration, but he was requested by the republican party. From wikipedia:

And it was Trump who made him chairman and gave him the power to do what he wanted. Pai is a republican yes man, the only reason he was there before Trump is that all governments have to come to compromises with the minority to some degree.

Again, this is not the point and it never has been, and just because it doesn't solve this particular issue it doesn't mean it's useless or that removing it is in any way positive. It's like saying that the ban on slavery isn't going to solve political corruption so we might as well repeal it... it doesn't work that way.

So "it's better than dial-up" is the best you can come up with to defend that behaviour? And I suppose if the speed was dial-up you'd say it's better than having no connection? It's ridiculous that 5Mb/s (or even lower) is sold as "broadband" with matching prices. There are many countries that you might consider less technologically advanced compared to the US that have better broadband offerings than that. And it's not even rural areas I'm talking about, because in that case I could understand a lack of infrastructure (although not the prices).

No,i'm not defending anything here,i'm all for Pai getting replaced by someone competent,Pai is so bad it's like he knows how bad he is with the lame stupid memes. I hope they get charged and prosecuted for their corruption. Though you must be Canadian or European,you don't know what it was like to be stuck with dial-up to finally get broadband internet,with the only other competition getting shafted by having to purchase a full cable bundle when you may not even want a home phone or cable TV,on top of that having a shitty 200-300gb data cap.

[AngryBeaver]

I see a lot of people saying the repeal was a good move, but what protections do the customers have now then?

 

Look at companies like Comcast who operate as a Monopoly in a major portion of the US. They already nickel and dime their customers to death.. this just means that now they can charge you for priority access to certain features. Want to stream 4k content from netflix? Well now you need to pay for that privilege. This will just be another way they can take advantage of this system to penalize cord cutters.

 

In the past they were taking money from certain companies and services in order to give their connections priority. This is partially where net-neutrality originated from. We have moved from services that were offering unlimited data to a new soft cap system that heavily punishes people that take advantage of their connection or cut the cord.

 

We look at Comcast specifically. You get 1tb of data before you get hit with high overage fee's. This does not chance based on the tier of speed you purchase. So lets say I purchase a 1gb connection from them for $200 a month. I can use that connection full for 2.5 hrs before going over the cap. So if we look at the maximum theoretical data i could consume in a month that would be about 300TB a month. So if we look at that... we can only use %0.3 or one third of a percent of our connection before we go over the limit.

 

So I am paying 200 a month for a connection I can only use 1/3 of a percent of (0.3%). This is just going to get worse with net-neutrality being repealed. This means they can also control out access to sites that they do not agree with for example.

 

This hurts consumers and companies who rely on digital delivery of their services. We are already behind the other big countries when it comes to internet speeds, price, and quality of those connections. This change does nothing but move us backwards instead of forwards.