FCC orders net neutrality repeal

[leadeater]

2 minutes ago, DutchTexan said:

I value what the Supreme Court decides, because they are the only individuals truly capable of interpreting the Constitution. That's very important to me.

But why does the supreme court even need to weigh in to internet services at all? It's very clear what it actually is and the only people trying to stop it being so is ISPs.

 

Also by not supporting it as a utility that means that a 3rd party unrelated to you and the ISP you are trying to get a service from can block you from getting that service and you have no recourse to challenge it, for example you have a shared driveway with another owner and the only way to get faster internet service is by laying a new cable which they are refusing to let happen.

 

Should some other unrelated person be able to have such say over the services you can get? They can't do it for phone, power, water or gas but they can for internet? Why?

[DutchTexan]

34 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

No Im saying paying for "Unlimited" and being told that OH you used too much data. Stop or get your shit turned off in not cool. Which even wired ISP's have done in the past. Most ISP's are not clear on what they consider "Unlimited" which is unethical. But there are not ethics in business now days. Its all about bending the customer over and taking every thing they have. 

 

I have no problem with those people. I have a problem when that money is used to buy off the god damned government. Which is what wealthy fuckers do and other organizations. Such as Wall Street, the oil companies and not to forget the NRA (who is taking lots of heat due to issues that happened recently). The Governments job is to represent the people, that includes all people, not just the 1%. Also, if greed is not the problem then why does the Walton Family have billions of dollars but my tax dollars are spent on Walmart workers having to be on Government assistance? Its not the workers fault they have to work for starvation wages, its the greedy system we live in. Or how about what Wall Street did back in 08. They could have throw the world back in to another great depression. Im sorry but I dont want to live thru one of those, but they never learn. I guess the market crash of 1929 was never tough in what ever school these dumb asses went to. 

 

Net Neutrality job should be to make sure there is free flow of information on the internet. To make sure all data is treated equally. Im not against QoS options as long as there are no zero rating. Also, if an ISP wants to cap, they should be required to submit there meter in to the goverment every so many years to be inspected. Just like Gas pumps are here in my home state, just like I expect they do in all states. ISP's should not be able to throttle based on what service you want to use. To use Zero rating or throttling on a service is anti competitive. 

 

Also I agree with @leadeater ISP's should be a utility. They should have to be treated as such, especially if they cap. 

You are complaining about faulty advertising or basically misrepresentation of a service. I agree you shouldn't pay for a horse just to end up with a neat looking dog that kinda runs like horse. 

 

I will reply to all that crashing and AAA bonds stuff with one word: Venezuela. Don't be scared of the free market. If the internet was truly free then competition would drive success. If there is no competition then we get to where we are now. 

 

If you get to bring up the NRA then I get to say something about Unions donating billions of dollars for the same purpose. There are campaign finance laws for individuals, which shouldn't exist because individual money is free speech. Bribery is one thing shitty advertisements are another.  

[DutchTexan]

3 minutes ago, leadeater said:

But why does the supreme court even need to weigh in to internet services at all? It's very clear what it actually is and the only people trying to stop it being so is ISPs.

 

Also by not supporting it as a utility that means that a 3rd party unrelated to you and the ISP you are trying to get a service from can block you from getting that service and you have no recourse to challenge it, for example you have a shared driveway with another owner and the only way to get faster internet service is by laying a new cable which they are refusing to let happen.

 

Should some other unrelated person be able to have such say over the services you can get? They can't do it for phone, power, water or gas but they can for internet? Why?

Because it was a legal matter that than made it all the way to the highest court in the land. 

 

I would have no recourse to challenge that cable in the driveway, if I have no other options to go to. You are correct there. That is exactly the issue. You want the driveway situation to have protections while I want the guy just have options. If there are 'protections' in the form of regulation, then it limits options. If there are no options, then there is a stagnate product/service.

 

The whole purpose of repealing Net Neutrality is to enable competition, choices. Enable some other guy to run that theoretical cable to my home or offer whatever other solution he's got for my money.  

 

Internet is not a utility, because I won't die without it. Technically, I won't die without electricity or water from the city, either. But I'm a little extreme. Loosening regulations works out, because more people have access to my money. Therefore, I have over a dozen options for electricity and a few good ones for water(because Texas doesn't restrict utilities to the same degree as most states). So now I have free weekends and solar days, because I chose to pay more, even though I could be paying half the price. Because that's what I want and choose who gets my money for what. I don't see that being possible with heavy utility regulations.

 

Internet is not a utility and I would go as far as to say, for my area, electricity and water shouldn't be guaranteed either. Maybe for schools and hospitals there can be more regulation, but even then, those are very desirable markets with specific demands. If there is no incentive to supply or competition capable to supply, then demands will never be met. Less restrictions incentives supply, almost always.

 

It's like making plastic. Everyone can be forced to make the same plastic or anyone can make whatever plastic they want, even if it kills baby birds. Some people will buy the cheapest, most unsafe plastic for what they want and what they will pay for. While others will pay the most egregious amounts of money for a specifically pure plastic developed for some medical device they are manufacturing or whatever. 

 

The free market works. Competition and ease of entry for business is key. There are enough regulations for the twenty-first century. Sweet Dreams

[Master Disaster]

1 hour ago, DutchTexan said:

Is internet a utility? Yes or No. Has my Supreme Court ruled it as a telecommunication service or a as the transfer of data?

And the difference between those 2 things is?

[DutchTexan]

2 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

And the difference between those 2 things is?

legality 

[Master Disaster]

2 minutes ago, DutchTexan said:

legality 

Seems to me you are trying to call an Apple an Orange in the name stiffing customers out of a few more bucks.

 

I suppose you're going to argue that Bell telecommunications don't transfer data around then?

[leadeater]

20 minutes ago, DutchTexan said:

Internet is not a utility, because I won't die without it. Technically, I won't die without electricity or water from the city, either. But I'm a little extreme. Loosening regulations works out, because more people have access to my money.

You won't die without a phone and you don't even need a phone now, it's a utility. Public transport is a utility also.

 

A utility is not a life essential thing, that's actually not what a utility is. A utility is an essential, non life sustaining, service that is considered a basic need for a citizen of the country. An internet connection proportionally is equally as essential as a phone line is or public transport.

 

You also won't die without a water connection to the house either, not unless you're a moron who can't get free water from the many many free locations you can get it from. Running water to the home improves living quality it doesn't keep you alive.

 

There's much more to the internet than cat meme and facebook, if that's all it was then there is zero argument for it to be a utility. 

[leadeater]

15 minutes ago, DutchTexan said:

I would have no recourse to challenge that cable in the driveway, if I have no other options to go to. You are correct there. That is exactly the issue. You want the driveway situation to have protections while I want the guy just have options. If there are 'protections' in the form of regulation, then it limits options. If there are no options, then there is a stagnate product/service.

You can have all the options you like but if they all require a new cable to be laid e.g. fibre and you can't get it because of access rights issues then all the options in the world, even free internet, is not going to help. Options means nothing by itself.

[Master Disaster]

10 minutes ago, leadeater said:

You won't die without a phone and you don't even need a phone now, it's a utility. Public transport is a utility also.

 

A utility is not a life essential thing, that's actually not what a utility is. A utility is an essential, non life sustaining, service that is considered a basic need for a citizen of the country. An internet connection proportionally is equally as essential as a phone line is or public transport.

 

You also won't die without a water connection to the house either, not unless you're a moron who can't get free water from the many many free locations you can get from it. Running water to the home improves living quality it doesn't keep you alive.

 

There's much more to the internet than cat meme and facebook, if that's all it was then there is zero argument for it to be a utility. 

Exactly, here in the UK for example it's now impossible to apply for government benefits without the internet, many businesses have moved their customer support services to be online only, if I want to buy a concert ticket I have to do so over the internet etc etc.

 

So many aspects of our lives now require an internet connection that arguing it's not a utility is rediculous. Literally the only people making this argument are those who are OK with ISPs ripping customers off in the name of MOAR MONIEZ FOR DEM SHAREHOLDERZ!!!!

[Mihle]

@DutchTexan But the things is, in a 100% free marked, monopolies would happen over long enough time. Because if noone stops a ISP to buy small ISPs when that means the ISP gets monopoly in that area, then that will happen. also, in a 100% free marked, nothing will stop 2 big ISPs making deals about not competing under the table.
 

Repealing net neutrality does literally NOTHING for competition between ISPs. It only makes it worse for customers in places where there is monopoly.
It also makes it possible for ISPs to have much more control over markets outside being an isp. Those markets gets less fair for companies in it. That means less fair competition in those markets if the ISPs decide to trottle some spesific companies data but not its competition. And it would especially affect small companies that the ISPs dont like.

[mr moose]

31 minutes ago, DutchTexan said:

Because it was a legal matter that than made it all the way to the highest court in the land. 

 

I would have no recourse to challenge that cable in the driveway, if I have no other options to go to. You are correct there. That is exactly the issue. You want the driveway situation to have protections while I want the guy just have options. If there are 'protections' in the form of regulation, then it limits options. If there are no options, then there is a stagnate product/service.

 

The whole purpose of repealing Net Neutrality is to enable competition, choices. Enable some other guy to run that theoretical cable to my home or offer whatever other solution he's got for my money.  

 

Internet is not a utility, because I won't die without it. Technically, I won't die without electricity or water from the city, either. But I'm a little extreme. Loosening regulations works out, because more people have access to my money. Therefore, I have over a dozen options for electricity and a few good ones for water(because Texas doesn't restrict utilities to the same degree as most states). So now I have free weekends and solar days, because I chose to pay more, even though I could be paying half the price. Because that's what I want and choose who gets my money for what. I don't see that being possible with heavy utility regulations.

 

Internet is not a utility and I would go as far as to say, for my area, electricity and water shouldn't be guaranteed either. Maybe for schools and hospitals there can be more regulation, but even then, those are very desirable markets with specific demands. If there is no incentive to supply or competition capable to supply, then demands will never be met. Less restrictions incentives supply, almost always.

 

It's like making plastic. Everyone can be forced to make the same plastic or anyone can make whatever plastic they want, even if it kills baby birds. Some people will buy the cheapest, most unsafe plastic for what they want and what they will pay for. While others will pay the most egregious amounts of money for a specifically pure plastic developed for some medical device they are manufacturing or whatever. 

 

The free market works. Competition and ease of entry for business is key. There are enough regulations for the twenty-first century. Sweet Dreams

I can't believe you think you have competition or that repealing NN is going to improve competition.   Apart from the fact it has been spelled out for you at least a half dozen times before by more than 1 person, it's just not logical given the evidence.     NN was only a thing for 2 years, competition only shrank without it and you think somehow things are going to change?    A free market only works when there is regulation to stop it becoming an oligopoly.  Alas, it is too late for that in the US,  it already is an oligopoly and there are no independent authorities to stop it.  You are only fooling yourself if you think things are going to get better with this type of government agency in charge.

[Theminecraftaddict555]

The repeal is fine or i hate the current internet rules and i think the repeal will make the internet world better bla-bla-bla

Then someone else challenges that statement and the people who created that statement go instantly silent. *clap-clap*. Just from what i have seen so far from skimming the article & topics

 

OT, I'm positive that most senators/congressman won't pass this repeal unless the FCC forces them through payment or threats.

 

 

[vorticalbox]

On 22/02/2018 at 11:23 PM, Unimaginative Name said:

The internet grew up perfectly fine without net neutrality.

We have pretty much always had net neutrality

[DutchTexan]

Perspective, values and perception is all we are going to end up arguing about. I live in Texas, things are different here.

 

 

16 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

Seems to me you are trying to call an Apple an Orange in the name stiffing customers out of a few more bucks.

 

I suppose you're going to argue that Bell telecommunications don't transfer data around then?

You live in the UK.

 

No, I was referring to when the Supreme Court repealed a Court of Appeals opinion where the 'telecommunications service' vs 'information service' phrases were specifically used to define internet in context of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

 

16 hours ago, leadeater said:

You can have all the options you like but if they all require a new cable to be laid e.g. fibre and you can't get it because of access rights issues then all the options in the world, even free internet, is not going to help. Options means nothing by itself.

You live in New Zealand.

 

That is precisely what I mean by options. We are making theoretical arguments where the theory on both sides disallows meaningful discussion. If I can't have fiber xyz over that shared driveway or for whatever other reason, no matter what, then that's the end of my discussion. If I could have more than a dozen choices for something, like most Texans have for electricity, then that's the end of your discussion. 

 

More options, less taxes and less restrictions are a good thing.

 

16 hours ago, Mihle said:

@DutchTexan But the things is, in a 100% free marked, monopolies would happen over long enough time. Because if noone stops a ISP to buy small ISPs when that means the ISP gets monopoly in that area, then that will happen. also, in a 100% free marked, nothing will stop 2 big ISPs making deals about not competing under the table.
 

Repealing net neutrality does literally NOTHING for competition between ISPs. It only makes it worse for customers in places where there is monopoly.
It also makes it possible for ISPs to have much more control over markets outside being an isp. Those markets gets less fair for companies in it. That means less fair competition in those markets if the ISPs decide to trottle some spesific companies data but not its competition. And it would especially affect small companies that the ISPs dont like.

You live in Norway.

 

What you are describing has already happened. Charter (Time Warner Cable) and Xfinity (Comcast) own over 81% of the US market right now, today.

 

This has either happened because our market is too natural, free, or because giant corporations use government regulations to their advantage and gain power. I have my money on the latter, because quite a few laws and things have happened since the 1800's.

 

The statements and thought process you communicate make absolute sense in their own right, without context. It's logical and reasonable. I am just saying that I think the answer is the polar opposite to what you, and everyone else here apparently, thinks it should be.

 

It is too difficult for ISP's to get skin in the game, therefore consumers are confined to 1 plan from 1 ISP that provides over 25mbps. This is how it is all over the vast majority of American soil. Only a few percent (from what I can tell, large metropolitan areas) have actual choices for solid internet.

 

We agree on the problem. We will disagree why that problem exists and/or how to make it go away. 

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, DutchTexan said:

...

 

You live in the UK.

...

You live in New Zealand.

 

...

 

You live in Norway.

 

 

So are you saying where someone lives effects their ability to understand and form opinions?  I live in Australia, does that effect my ability to understand US law or corporate operations?    Of course not, location has nothing to do with any of this.  If you think someone is wrong then show them why, pointing out where someone lives doesn't change the legitimacy of their argument or the validity of their evidence.

[DutchTexan]

17 hours ago, mr moose said:

I can't believe you think you have competition or that repealing NN is going to improve competition.   Apart from the fact it has been spelled out for you at least a half dozen times before by more than 1 person, it's just not logical given the evidence.     NN was only a thing for 2 years, competition only shrank without it and you think somehow things are going to change?    A free market only works when there is regulation to stop it becoming an oligopoly.  Alas, it is too late for that in the US,  it already is an oligopoly and there are no independent authorities to stop it.  You are only fooling yourself if you think things are going to get better with this type of government agency in charge.

A free market only works when the consumers have power. Regulations to 'protect the consumer' do the exact opposite. Modern regulations are just restrictions 19 out of 20 times. Restrictions only big business can handle easily.

 

You are foolish for thinking the government will solve the problem. How is it that politicians who have done nothing but work in government for their entire lives end up being worth 10, 20 or even 40+ million dollars??

 

We don't need a government making consumer decisions or telling citizens what is dangerous.

[mr moose]

8 minutes ago, DutchTexan said:

A free market only works when the consumers have power.

consumers themselves keep telling you they have no options, what power do you think consumers have right now?

 

8 minutes ago, DutchTexan said:

 

Regulations to 'protect the consumer' do the exact opposite. Modern regulations are just restrictions 19 out of 20 times. Restrictions only big business can handle easily.

 

Proof? we have government regulation here in Aus and our populations average wealth is higher than yours,  we have free health care, low unemployment and the choice of 50+ ISP's. Your understanding of the implications of regulation are wrong.  there is nothing intrinsic to the US economy or consumers that mitigates the benefits of government regulation,  what you do have is too much corporate control in government and you seem happy to protect that.   And don't try to argue there is a difference between the US and any other similar first world country,  consumers are the same, societies and economies all operate on the same principals, barring some rare cases of extreme cultural difference what works in one country works in all.  

 

8 minutes ago, DutchTexan said:

You are foolish for thinking the government will solve the problem. How is it that politicians who have done nothing but work in government for their entire lives end up being worth 10, 20 or even 40+ million dollars??

None of that actually addresses any of the problems, that's just an open ended accusation that qualifies nothing. 

 

8 minutes ago, DutchTexan said:

 

We don't need a government making consumer decisions or telling citizens what is dangerous.

No, you need a government that will support the people when they make their own decisions.  If you had been listening to the consumers you'd know that they want regulation to stop ISP's  holding them to ransom. They want independent authorities to ensure no one takes unfair advantage of their position.  That is how a free market thrives. 

 

 

[leadeater]

27 minutes ago, DutchTexan said:

That is precisely what I mean by options. We are making theoretical arguments where the theory on both sides disallows meaningful discussion. If I can't have fiber xyz over that shared driveway or for whatever other reason, no matter what, then that's the end of my discussion. If I could have more than a dozen choices for something, like most Texans have for electricity, then that's the end of your discussion. 

 

More options, less taxes and less restrictions are a good thing.

 

Electricity requires a cable, a cable no party is legally allowed to stop you from getting. That's precisely my point, if internet was a utility then every option is available to you not only the ones you can get based on agreements with land owners or land lords. I don't think you understood the point I was making.

 

You have all the electricity options because it's a utility, if it were not you would have less options.

[DutchTexan]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

 

So are you saying where someone lives effects their ability to understand and form opinions?  I live in Australia, does that effect my ability to understand US law or corporate operations?    Of course not, location has nothing to do with any of this.  If you think someone is wrong then show them why, pointing out where someone lives doesn't change the legitimacy of their argument or the validity of their evidence.

Yep. That's why I pointed out every one of y'all (probably) don't have internet in the US.

 

If you're not a US citizen, then you don't actually have a say in the matter. Do you? I'm not saying you can't have good inputs or make a good point on the subject. I am saying if you strictly read about an issue, then you are all theory - you don't have any real world experience. 

 

What's it like chew bubblegum? Have I experienced all gum, because I have chewed some before?

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, DutchTexan said:

Yep. That's why I pointed out every one of y'all (probably) don't have internet in the US.

 

If you're not a US citizen, then you don't actually have a say in the matter. Do you? I'm not saying you can't have good inputs or make a good point on the subject. I am saying if you strictly read about an issue, then you are all theory - you don't have any real world experience. 

 

What's it like chew bubblegum? Have I experienced all gum, because I have chewed some before?

 

When you dismiss what everyone is telling you (even those in your own country) then you close yourself of to new information, this is why you are almost alone in your arguments, it is not a geographical issue.  How many options for internet do you have again?

[Guest The Viking]

1 minute ago, DutchTexan said:

If you're not a US citizen, then you don't actually have a say in the matter. Do you? I'm not saying you can't have good inputs or make a good point on the subject. I am saying if you strictly read about an issue, then you are all theory - you don't have any real world experience. 

because we have our OWN regulations that are similar to net neutrality and contrarily to the US where the customer, for some reason, loves to be raped by corporations in the name of "free market", our market has a lot more options and competition is here. We also get raped by some companies, but much less than you do.

 

And yes, in EU we have our own net neutrality rules.

[mr moose]

8 minutes ago, DutchTexan said:

What's it like chew bubblegum? Have I experienced all gum, because I have chewed some before?

Further to this, internet is not like describing the taste of bubble gum.  We all know what it is like to have 3 options for internet and slow speeds.   We had dial up at one stage too you know.  When someone tells us they have 3 options (and I have seen the stats, most do only have 3 options.  Shit, shittier and expensive), we don't need to live in the US with that experience to understand full well what it means.

[Aeternalis]

8 minutes ago, The Viking said:

 contrarily to the US where the customer, for some reason, loves to be raped by corporations in the name of "free market",

In this episode of "Statists say the darnedest things"

 

The government caused the problems that made net neutrality needed in the US.

 

 

[leadeater]

1 minute ago, DutchTexan said:

If you're not a US citizen, then you don't actually have a say in the matter. Do you? I'm not saying you can't have good inputs or make a good point on the subject. I am saying if you strictly read about an issue, then you are all theory - you don't have any real world experience. 

Living in the US actually gives you no better experience over a lot of the issues, it does however give you a much bigger stake in the matter. Having worked with ISPs as part of my job would you not say this actually gives me more experience in the matter because I understand what it takes to get a customer connected and the underlying network?

 

I may not know all your specific laws that effect things like access rights to private and public land but that doesn't change the required process to get the work done only what specific legal steps you have to go through to do it. Internet access even in New Zealand is not classified as a utility either but it is being considered.

 

I don't disagree with your opinion to want less regulation when it comes to internet access but forms of regulation are and will always be required, there is nothing that is not regulated (not even breathing air). If I could pick just two regulations to apply to US internet access that would be Local Loop Unbundling (LLU) and classifying internet access as a utility, no being a utility does not set things like fixed pricing or the like.

 

LLU means any ISP can be started and immediately have access to every household in the US and be able to offer them internet services, this will increase compition and options immediately. You'll hear a bunch of crap from current ISPs how this is a bad thing but it isn't, they only give a damn because they lose exclusive rights over the cable which restricts competition and options.

 

Classifying internet access as a utility makes it much easier for a new ISP to be able to put in the required infrastructure to operate and exist, this will increase competition and options.

[Blademaster91]

Just now, Aeternalis said:

In this episode of "Statists say the darnedest things"

 

The government caused the problems that made net neutrality needed in the US.

 

 

No the ISP's themselves did, the govt already provided funding for ISPs to expand improved bandwidth while ISPs chose to pocket most of it. NN didn't fix anything so far in fact companies put more data caps in place since, nothing is going to fix the problem unless companies are forced to split up to create more competition.