Printable View
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/14/fcc-...eutrality.html
The FCC voted to remove the 2015 Open Internet Order, which governed internet service providers as communication service providers.
It required internet service providers to treat all internet traffic as equal.
Now telecommunications and cable companies will be allowed to price various online activities that use bandwidth at different rates.
"The Open Internet Order, which was set in place during President Barack Obama's administration in 2015, required telecommunications and cable companies to treat all online traffic as equal.
Republicans say taking an egalitarian approach discourages ISPs from investing in better infrastructure and technologies to improve the internet. It may also make it harder for smaller ISPs to gain ground. The FCC is currently led by Chairman Ajit Pai, who was appointed to that role by President Donald Trump."
I hope it works out OK. Man, there are a LOT of us who were against this.
Not just price them at different rates but outright block or segregate sections of the web into different "packages" that the consumer has to pay for. This is a HORRIBLE day for the internet, the USA just lost an essential modern freedom.Quote:
Originally Posted by badrose
Call and tweet your congressmen
https://www.battleforthenet.com/?lin...y-breakthrough
While I agree about the importance of net neutrality, we haven't lost it yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroDaGr8
If the providers start to do the things we fear they will, I'm not sure it will hold. Consumers may demand neutrality go back into effect. In fairness these rules were only formalized in 2015, we'll see what the providers do b/c if they do go the wrong way I think the backlash will be strong.
I suspect they'll play it cool for a year or two, and then....WHAM.
I should probably have a stronger opinion on this but I just do not.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk
Sadly I agree. I also think the sheeple of this nation will never catch on b/c it will be gradual, like boiling a frog by turning up the temperature so slow it doesn't notice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darrell KSR
Everything was working fine prior to the issuance of the net neutrality rule just 2 years ago. Nothing has happened to justify the completely extra-constitutional power grab by the FCC to regulate the internet for the first time. While I share the concerns about a free and competitive internet, I have far more faith in how the internet has evolved to date without government control, than I do if it went forward with the government controlling the internet. Particularly without any authority from Congress that it do so. They just made it up. “Net Neutrality” = “Affordable Cats Act.”Quote:
Originally Posted by badrose
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'd like to give my opinion on this but I'm told I'll be charged $5.00 extra by my ISP if use too many characters and I'm about to run o
The best argument I've heard on this is it's going to stifle innovation. Some bandwidth-intensive startup may never get off the ground, and we'll never hear of it because it never happened. A "dog that didn't bark" situation.
https://twitter.com/normative/status/941667790087475201
I am not optimistic. The path has been shown. Regardless of where we were exactly when the protections were put in place, I know where we are now.
Two years, maximum, and we'll see this having a substantial impact. Maybe sooner.
Everything you said is either wrong or is an outright lie. This is not extra-constitutional nor was it a power grab as much as it was preventing a power grab by the ISPs. The 1934 Telecommunications Act gives the FCC the right to regulate common carriers of information. The only people claiming the internet is not telecommunications, making it a power grab, are paid shills. The corruption there is disgusting. Even the people who invented the internet, think that this attempt to claim that the internet is not telecommunications is ridiculous.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBlue92
Now let's get into Net Neutrality History, since it's clear you know nothing about the background of this order.
First off, this did not start under Obama. The first net neutrality rules from the FCC came under Bush. Then FCC chair Michael Powell listed four rules of Network Freedom in 2005.
1. Freedom to access content
2. Freedom to run applications
3. Freedom to attach devices
4. Freedom to obtain service plan information.
In that same year, the FCC for the first time opens a formal investigation into an ISP to enforce network freedom. The ISP drops their practices and pays a fine before the investigation completes
In 2009, in response to some ISPs blocking FaceTime the FCC announces two additional rules they planned to add to Michael Powel's previous four:
5. That ISPs cannot discriminate against any content or application.
6. That ISPs must make their policies clear.
In 2010 the FCC codifies these new rules as part of the Open Internet Order aka Net Neutrality 1.
In 2014, this order is overturned because the FCC tried to not clasify ISPs as common carriers. This was an attempt to not be as heavy handed but without that classification they did not have the right to manage these networks under the 1934 telecommunications act.
2015 the FCC agrees to classify ISPs as common carriers (as they should be) as well as falling under Section 702 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. This gives them the authority to enforce Net Neutrality. The modern form of Net Neutrality is born.
Today - Ajit Pai being the pathetic corrupt POS that he is, repeals net neutrality to benefit those who paid him previously.
Now to address your comment that everything was working fine before. Everything WAS NOT working fine before, you just weren't paying attention. The reason that net neutrality became law WAS because the ISPs were abusing their power and getting more and more unabashed about it.
There's nothing hypothetical about what ISPs will do when net neutrality is eliminated. Here are just a few things that happened when you claimed everything was working fine.
2005 - AT&T suggests giving paid preferential treatment to some web giants, starting the modern iteration of this mess.
2005 - Madison River Communications was blocking VOIP services. The FCC put a stop to it.
2005-2007 - Comcast was denying access to p2p services without notifying customers. They eventually settle a lawsuit and supposedly stopped.
2007-2009 - AT&T was having Skype and other VOIPs blocked because they didn't like that there was competition for their cellphones.
2011 - MetroPCS tried to block all streaming except youtube. They actually sued the FCC over this.
2011-2013 - AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon were blocking access to Google Wallet because it competed with their own proprietary garbage offerings. This one happened literally months after the trio were busted collaborating with Google to block apps from the android marketplace
2012 - Verizon was demanding google block tethering apps on android because it let owners avoid their $20 tethering fee. This was despite guaranteeing they wouldn't do that as part of a winning bid on an airwaves auction. They were fined $1.25million over this.
2012, AT&T - tried to block access to FaceTime unless customers paid more money.
2013 - Verizon literally stated that the only thing stopping them from favoring some content providers over other providers were the current net neutrality rules in place. Verizon lawyer Helgi Walker stated in court that Verizon wants to prioritize those websites and services that are willing to shell out for better access. She also admitted that the company would like to block online content from those companies or individuals that don’t pay Verizon’s tolls.
2014 - Verizon, Comcast, and several other ISPs throttle all Netflix data to intentionally degrade service. The goal was trying to force a huge bribe (several million a year in Verizon's case) from Netflix and unfairly favor internal competing services.
2015 - The current version of net neutrality comes into place.
There is actually more, that occurred before 2005 but I can't find data on when the practice stated. Just articles discussing it after the policies were reversed. Namely AT&T used to say that using a home network not provided by them was a theft of service. Similarly, Cox Cable used to ban the access of VPNs on their network for any reason. These were the reason that Michael Powell introduced the rules that he did.
So in the end, it's not a power grab, Congress gave the authority in 1934, it's not extra-constitutional(if anything it was BEFORE this act was passed), it has a decade long history of use, there have been MANY times that it has been needed and those times were getting much more aggressive, etc. Lack of knowledge of the past is not the same thing as lack of evidence existing. The evidence and truth is there, you just remained ignorant of it.
For others, this list of offences should tell you everything you need to know about how things will play out in the future.
Sent from my LG-LS998 using Tapatalk
Yes because prior to 2015 when the net neutrality came into effect, the interweb was a disaster. Most things are much more efficient and fair when the government become more involved.
Seriuosly, if these massive abuses that everybody predicts occur, I'd expect the free market and enterprising entrepeneures to develop and present an alternative option
Damn it, did you even TRY to read what I posted before you opened your mouth?Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc
First off, as I stated, the internet WASN'T a disaster because the FCC was ALREADY enforcing net neutrality from 2005, they just called it Net Fairness. Again, the internet became VERY close to being a huge disaster in the mid-2000s, way more than you realize. There were already issues cropping up and the FCC was dealing with them to prevent abuse. As I said to BigBlue92, just because you weren't paying attention doesn't mean things weren't happening. If the FCC had not been as proactive as they were, the internet would be a huge mess today and likely 90% of the stuff you enjoy would either not have been invented or no longer exist. I already listed a number of things that the ISPs tried but my list isn't even half of the other things they tried. The ONLY reason that these abuses didn't get worse was because they were mostly stymied by the FCC.
That being said, with every success and loophole discovered they became more and more bold about their exploitation of their customers. Additionally, the more they consolidated the more they abused their position. So your statement that things weren't bad before 2015 is ACTUALLY evidence to the fact that the Net Neutrality regulation was necessary, because most of these rules were already in effect. The most recent rule, now called Net Neutrality, basically was there to close some of the additional loopholes that the ISPs had found and to deal with the legal corner that the ISPs sued the FCC into. The FCC did not want enhanced legislation, they wanted to be as hands-off as possible. They DID NOT want to classify them as common carriers because it does introduce a lot of regulatory hurdles that may or may not be relevant, but Congress refused to codify Net Neutrality as law OR give the FCC another legal option to enforce it. As a result of the lawsuits the only options left were to abandon the exact rules that made the net what it was from 2005-2017 or codify them as common carriers (which they 100% are and the FCC 100% has the congressional authority to do) to get the ability to regulate these rules acceptable.
Ajit Pai just scrapped EVERYTHING going all the way back to Net Fairness. He did not roll it back to pre-2015 levels like he (and many Republicans) are lying (and they know this and hope you don't). He rolled it back to pre-2004 levels of regulation. Back when AOL was still a thing and the internet was barely a part of life. Every single thing the ISPs tried previously, which was judged illegal, is now 100% legal. All of it, every single little bit. They can screw you over any way they choose and you get to bend over and take it.
First on their list, Netflix is dead. It is not going to be a quick death, but Netflix and any related service is dead all the same. The Cable ISPs are driving this one, they want you to pay way more and get way less so that you can use their proprietary system. Second will be segregation of the internet. You will have priority lanes and slow lanes, that is a fact. It happened before and it will happen again. You will be told what devices you can connect to the internet. Want to connect a router, you MUST buy it through your ISP and only one they control. As mentioned before, AT&T already tried this, this is not a hypothetical. You get to pay AT&T's prices not the free market prices. Plus, it gets hacked? Oh well, that's not their problem; you should have been more careful. Want to connect your computer, they could legally enforce that you MUST purchase your computer through them (much like cellphones). Again, lining their pockets and screwing your over. This regulation destroyed the free market, not enhanced it, so don't give me "muh free market garbage".
On the topic of the free market, the free market is operating exactly as designed right now and by its default nature markets with a high barrier to entry end up with HUGE abuses of the consumers because the competition is not there. The competition is what makes the free market as good as it is. Without it, you get all of the negatives and none of the benefits. This high barrier to entry is a physical problem, called the last mile problem, and some of the brightest minds in the world have been trying to solve this problem for the last four decades and do not have a solution. As such, the only options are: the government subsidizes build outs (they have tried but it is too expensive at the large scale), build municipal ISPs (which is like a subsidy but more locally tailored), regulate the market to prevent the abuses, or let the companies abuse their market position to gain more control and further exploit the citizens of this nation. Even now, they have enough power to abuse their position notably. When local small level ISPs try to setup, the major ISPs use their lobbying to get them shut down. Hell even larger upstart ISPs like Google Fiber have been heavily stymied by the nation ISPs. They have gotten Google Fiber shut down in many cities, either directly or by making it impossible to be profitable. Same thing with municipal broadband networks (in essence the government attacking the last mile problem), the large national ISPs work to get them shut down and are trying to make them entirely illegal if possible. So the only option left to prevent these abuses is to regulate the market.
As for regulation, just because the government does some things (or even most things badly) doesn't mean it does EVERYTHING badly. Again, the free market is not perfect, just less imperfect than almost every other system. The free market fails when it comes to externalities and dealing with monopolistic/oligopolistic situations. It also fails when it comes to long term planning, but that is not relevant here. The free market needs the government to step in with regulation to ensure competion, ensure fairness, and hopefully ensure long term planning is dealt with. This was a levels the playing field kind of regulation, Ajit Pai just rolled that back to the Standard Oil/1950s AT&T level of unfairness and you somehow think that is a positive for the free market.
The Republicans who support this appeal are 100% wrong on this and it is not even close. They know that by saying removing this regulation the market is more free that many will not be intelligent enough to realize it is a lie. The reality is they are intentionally screwing you over to benefit the ISPs while damaging the free market and you are somehow supporting this.
A fear of cryptocurrency maybe?
Pedro, thanks for the outstanding analysis. A lot of people are being duped.
Why the need to act like a dick? Yes I read your post but just because you posted a thesis doesn't mean I have to believe it. I've elected/decided to not take the "chicken little,the sky is falling" attitude. I don't believe all businesses and corporations are corrupt, and I don't believe the government needs to be involved in every scope of life. I also believe that IF things turn for the worse THEN corrective measures be implimentedQuote:
Originally Posted by PedroDaGr8
Everyone knows I'm as libertarian as they come, but this is a situation with utilities, and the massive barriers to entry in untilities and the nature of their cost structure have long prevented the free market from working.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc
It's nearly impossible to present alternatives in this situation, just like it is w electricity, thus the need for a different approach.
So because somebody disagees they are duped?Quote:
Originally Posted by Darrell KSR
I could counter that those who see this as (cue the REM music) the end of the internet as we know it...are the dupees
For clarification: I really don't have a strong opinion on whether this is good or bad. I certainly don't see it as the Armageddon many predict. I also know that laws and regulations are fluid so if this does turn for the worse, something between no big deal and the reversal to the earth's rotation on it's axis, something can and will be done.
Now I could come up with a bunch of filler because a 15 paragraph post carries far more weight, and maybe even throw in some Wikipedia data/stats..with a bit of faux rage for the fun of it but typing on this tiny phone is too taxing
OK, I can accept that. As I stated in my last post, Im not really pro or anti Net Neutrrality. I'm just not seeing the end of the internet. Sort of like when Obama was elected, we were doomed to communism, and when Trump was elected we were doomed to...well, just doomed. Or the ACA was going to be the end of health care, or the up coming tax reform means the middle class will starve, etc...... People have a tendency to WAY WAY overblown the effects. If 1/4 of the things happen that are predicted, the consumers will revolt and demand change.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenBBN
I think this is me. There is enough passion and support to fight it if needed IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk
An interesting perspective.....
https://youtu.be/pRJQFTKfXD0
Ben Shapiro makes some good arguments against it if anyone wants to search that. Pro arguments seem to be easier to find. :)
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk