Eliminating Net Neutrality Rules Will Favor Carriers Over Internet Content Providers

[Punching Bag]

http://fortune.com/2017/11/21/net-neutrality-fcc-winners-losers/

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai on Tuesday unveiled his plan to erase the agency’s 2015 ban on Internet service providers discriminating against certain online content and services while favoring others. Pai’s plan also blocks state and local governments from imposing their own net neutrality rules.

 

Not really want companies like Verizon to have advantage considering how they have treated me in past.  

I am not affected as much as others who use wireless services using data caps and slow downs but have seen Verizon slow down services and then send out literature on how to speed up service after agreeing to pay premium rate.

[/dev/null]

To PPP in 3.....2......1

[Azalin]

I may just page back to the previous threads and cut & paste what I said back then.

 

Keep government out of the net.

 

Period.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Maybe Darren would be willing to merge the threads.  This sub-forum, by and large, is much better about limiting redundant threads than the main board.  It would be nice if we could keep it that way.

[Azalin]

1 hour ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Maybe Darren would be willing to merge the threads.  This sub-forum, by and large, is much better about limiting redundant threads than the main board.  It would be nice if we could keep it that way.

 

That would be great - I sure would appreciate it if he did.

[GG]

 

What will poor ol' Googles and Facebooks do without the protection of Net Neutrality?  They need protection, man.  They need it!

[boyst]

I used to be for net neutrality but think it is a terrible idea now. 

[GG]

Just now, Boyst62 said:

I used to be for net neutrality but think it is a terrible idea now. 

 

Why?  Because you now understand that net neutrality is a myth?

[Just Jack]

10 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Maybe Darren would be willing to merge the threads.  This sub-forum, by and large, is much better about limiting redundant threads than the main board.  It would be nice if we could keep it that way.

 

Where's the other thread?

[boyst]

13 minutes ago, GG said:

 

Why?  Because you now understand that net neutrality is a myth?

At the introduction of it and early days of pioneering the internet long before it became a tagline and talking point it had a purpose similar to unions. Unions were 100+ years ago. Which in technology terms - was 100 years ago.

 

The myth of net neutrality protects the big fish more then it does help the little fish.

 

What was first presented by everyone on it didn't add up or make sense. And since about 2011 I have been ok the fence to falling toward against it

[GG]

16 minutes ago, Boyst62 said:

At the introduction of it and early days of pioneering the internet long before it became a tagline and talking point it had a purpose similar to unions. Unions were 100+ years ago. Which in technology terms - was 100 years ago.

 

The myth of net neutrality protects the big fish more then it does help the little fish.

 

What was first presented by everyone on it didn't add up or make sense. And since about 2011 I have been ok the fence to falling toward against it

 

"Net Neutrality" was never about the little guy.  It was about Google & Netflix desire to avoid transit fees.

[/dev/null]

1 hour ago, GG said:

 

What will poor ol' Googles and Facebooks do without the protection of Net Neutrality?  They need protection, man.  They need it!

Speaking of Facebook

https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook-advertising-discrimination-housing-race-sex-national-origin

[Deranged Rhino]

You can usually get a good sense of what a Bill's true intent is by its name. Whatever the title of the bill is usually means the opposite: 

 

The Patriot Act = not at all patriotic. 

Affordable Care Act = not at all affordable

Net Neutrality = not really neutral. 

[B-Man]

MEGAN MCARDLE:

The Internet Had Already Lost Its Neutrality: Even while the FCC was more strictly regulating, a few powerful companies took control of what we see and don’t.

 

The internet will be filled today with denunciations of this move, threats of a dark future in which our access to content will be controlled by a few powerful companies. And sure, that may happen. But in fact, it may already have happened, led not by ISPs, but by the very companies that were fighting so hard for net neutrality.

 

Consider what happened to the Daily Stormer, the neo-Nazi publication, after Charlottesville. One by one, hosting companies refused to permit its content on their servers. The group was forced to effectively flee the country, and then other countries, too, shut it down.

 

Now of course, these are not nice people. Their website espoused vile hate. But the fact remains that what they were publishing was not illegal, merely immoral, and their immoral speech was effectively shut down by a small number of private companies who decided to exercise their considerable control over what we’re allowed to read. And what is to stop them from expanding this decision to other categories, forcing the rest of us to conform to Silicon Valley’s idea of what it is moral and right for us to see?

 

Fifteen years ago, when I started blogging, it was common to hear that “the internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.” You don’t hear that so often anymore, because it’s not true. China has proven very effective at censoring the internet, and as market power has consolidated in the tech industry, so have private firms.

 

Meanwhile, our experience of the internet is increasingly controlled by a handful of firms, most especially Google and Facebook. The argument for regulating these companies as public utilities is arguably at least as strong as the argument for thus regulating ISPs, and very possibly much stronger; while cable monopolies may have local dominance, none of them has the ability that Google and Facebook have to unilaterally shape what Americans see, hear, and read.

 

In other words, we already live in the walled garden that activists worry about, and the walls are getting higher every day. Is this a problem? I think it is.

[DC Tom]

14 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Affordable Care Act = not at all affordable

 

That's my favorite.  Not affordable, AND doesn't provide any care.

But it's an act...I guess...

[/dev/null]

18 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

You can usually get a good sense of what a Bill's true intent is by its name. Whatever the title of the bill is usually means the opposite: 

 

The Patriot Act = not at all patriotic. 

Affordable Care Act = not at all affordable

Net Neutrality = not really neutral. 

 So what you are saying is our trusted and respected leaders are not always truthful with their agendas?

 

Stop trying to undermine our democratic institutions and principles

4 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

That's my favorite.  Not affordable, AND doesn't provide any care.

But it's an act...I guess...

Yeah it's definitely an act

[B-Man]

NARAL takes the prize for most ‘INSANE’ defense of Net Neutrality

 

 

Quote

 

✔@NARAL

 

Repealing #NetNeutrality is a direct threat to reproductive freedom. Without it, our access to information about how to obtain an abortion or other #reprohealth services could be compromised. https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/7x9e59/losing-net-neutrality-could-cripple-abortion-rights …

1:23 PM - Nov 21, 2017

 

 

Not everything is about killing babies guys...................................

[Tiberius]

1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said:

You can usually get a good sense of what a Bill's true intent is by its name. Whatever the title of the bill is usually means the opposite: 

 

The Patriot Act = not at all patriotic. 

Affordable Care Act = not at all affordable

Net Neutrality = not really neutral. 

Tax cut and jobs act = tax cut for the wealthy 

[DC Tom]

16 minutes ago, B-Man said:

NARAL takes the prize for most ‘INSANE’ defense of Net Neutrality

 

 

 

Not everything is about killing babies guys...................................

 

Because no one ever had an abortion before the dial-up modem was invented.

 

EDIT: I just read some of the twitter replies.  People actually think repealing net neutrality means "President Trump gets to decide what is and isn't allowed on the internet."

 

Holy ****, people are stupid.

Edited November 22, 2017 by DC Tom

[row_33]

Fees will rise

services will drop

intrusion will rise

 

duh

[GoBills808]

What will erasing the 2015 bill accomplish?

[/dev/null]

31 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

What will erasing the 2015 bill accomplish?

What did the 2015 accomplish?

[GoBills808]

14 minutes ago, /dev/null said:

What did the 2015 accomplish?

I thought it prevented ISPs from dictating or hindering individuals' internet accessibility re: variable rates and content management...no?

[B-Man]

 

Quote

 

Bill de Blasio
✔@NYCMayor

 

Just a few thoughts on #NetNeutrality – first of all, access to a free and open internet is a fundamental right of every citizen. (1/4)

3:46 PM - Nov 22, 2017

 

 

 

[Azalin]

1 hour ago, GoBills808 said:

What will erasing the 2015 bill accomplish?

 

Bill? I don't remember any bill.

 

I do remember a proclamation of takeover by the former head of the FCC.

[Tiberius]

Oh, so we are going to be liberated by Trump?

[GoBills808]

36 minutes ago, Azalin said:

 

Bill? I don't remember any bill.

 

I do remember a proclamation of takeover by the former head of the FCC.

I guess I don't remember a bill...but didn't they basically enforce net neutrality by reclassifying ISPs under a couple different acts? 

[GG]

9 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

I guess I don't remember a bill...but didn't they basically enforce net neutrality by reclassifying ISPs under a couple different acts? 

 

Yes, because regulating the Internet like a 1930 telecom monopoly makes a lot of sense to an administration that made fun of people who apparently didn't believe in science and progress.

[GoBills808]

Just now, GG said:

 

Yes, because regulating the Internet like a 1930 telecom monopoly makes a lot of sense to an administration that made fun of people who apparently didn't believe in science and progress.

I thought that was just a technicality. I mean that's how a lot of new law is made, by referring/classifying really old statutes that have since been expanded and refined to incorporate the changing landscape.

[GG]

Just now, GoBills808 said:

I thought that was just a technicality. I mean that's how a lot of new law is made, by referring/classifying really old statutes that have since been expanded and refined to incorporate the changing landscape.

 

Nope, this was not a new law.  The only way that Obama/Wheeler could get away with their gambit was to use the exact terms of the 1930's regulations.

[GoBills808]

Just now, GG said:

 

Nope, this was not a new law.  The only way that Obama/Wheeler could get away with their gambit was to use the exact terms of the 1930's regulations.

Was this the ruling?

 

https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0312/FCC-15-24A1.pdf

 

Granted I only have a cursory understanding of the issue, but I glanced through it and it's very specific in describing prescriptive actions (usually they punt to case-by-case basis but still) for the kinds of issues I assume net neutrality seeks to address...it appears that 'edge providers' like Netflix that send huge amounts of data through ISP channels were straining data capacities? 

[GG]

3 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

Was this the ruling?

 

https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0312/FCC-15-24A1.pdf

 

Granted I only have a cursory understanding of the issue, but I glanced through it and it's very specific in describing prescriptive actions (usually they punt to case-by-case basis but still) for the kinds of issues I assume net neutrality seeks to address...it appears that 'edge providers' like Netflix that send huge amounts of data through ISP channels were straining data capacities? 

 

This is the official ruling in the Fed Register.  But your link also lays out the ridiculous assertion by Netflix & Google.  They are taking a disproportionate share of Internet traffic, but want others to pay for that transit.

[GoBills808]

Just now, GG said:

 

This is the official ruling in the Fed Register.  But your link also lays out the ridiculous assertion by Netflix & Google.  They are taking a disproportionate share of Internet traffic, but want others to pay for that transit.

So what did reclassifying ISPs do to address the payment-to-usage problem? And what's the law on who pays for it anyway? Is it just the responsibility of the ISP to keep increasing server capacity (or whatever) or are they allowed to charge Netflix by usage?

 

[GG]

3 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

So what did reclassifying ISPs do to address the payment-to-usage problem? And what's the law on who pays for it anyway? Is it just the responsibility of the ISP to keep increasing server capacity (or whatever) or are they allowed to charge Netflix by usage?

 

 

Plenty of discussion on this in the past.  Do a search.

 

But basically by reclassifying the ISPs as common carriers meant that they had to treat everyone the same and not prioritize services by fee or content.   Sounds great to liberals, but breaks down in practice, because Netflix demands are much greater than Mario's corner pizza shop.  So ISPs must upgrade their networks to transmit Netflix traffic, but can't charge Netflix more money for the transit.  So if the ISPs can't charge Netflix for the usage, guess who gets to pay the bill at the end of the day?

[GoBills808]

1 minute ago, GG said:

 

Plenty of discussion on this in the past.  Do a search.

 

But basically by reclassifying the ISPs as common carriers meant that they had to treat everyone the same and not prioritize services by fee or content.   Sounds great to liberals, but breaks down in practice, because Netflix demands are much greater than Mario's corner pizza shop.  So ISPs must upgrade their networks to transmit Netflix traffic, but can't charge Netflix more money for the transit.  So if the ISPs can't charge Netflix for the usage, guess who gets to pay the bill at the end of the day?

Will do, much appreciated!

[DC Tom]

1 hour ago, Azalin said:

 

Bill? I don't remember any bill.

 

"Trump's arbitrarily changing the law Obama arbitrarily created!  Fascism!"

 

Our upcoming civil war is going to be one of massive ignorance.

[Doc Brown]

8 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

You can usually get a good sense of what a Bill's true intent is by its name. Whatever the title of the bill is usually means the opposite: 

 

The Patriot Act = not at all patriotic. 

Affordable Care Act = not at all affordable

Net Neutrality = not really neutral. 

 

6 hours ago, Tiberius said:

Tax cut and jobs act = tax cut for the wealthy 

How do you screw that up based on his premise?  All you had to do was say the opposite...

 

Tax Cuts and Jobs act = increase in taxes and a decline in jobs.  

[Tiberius]

1 minute ago, Doc Brown said:

 

How do you screw that up based on his premise?  All you had to do was say the opposite...

 

Tax Cuts and Jobs act = increase in taxes and a decline in jobs.  

Sometimes I just need to slow down

[3rdnlng]

16 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Sometimes I just need to slow down

On the contrary. You've always been slow.

[DC Tom]

2 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

 

How do you screw that up based on his premise?  All you had to do was say the opposite...

 

Tax Cuts and Jobs act = increase in taxes and a decline in jobs.  

 

Same way he screws up everything else.  He's an idiot.