It's official: the FCC has killed net neutrality

[MilwaukeeMike]

You do realize that Comcast and Verizon lobbied for this right? Perfect example of hypocrisy, Comcast and Verizon are perfect angles but the founders of the internet, 89% of US citizens, computer experts, and all the internet based service companies are bad guys. Please go peddle your double standard BS elsewhere.

89% of US citizens, computer experts, and all the internet based service companies don't want their netflix to go up a few bucks a month.

The govt should not be sticking their nose in and passing laws in the name of 'fairness' to stop anyone from setting their own prices of their product. Net Neutrality allows Netflix and Google (youtube) to use as much of the providers networks as they like without it being legal for Comcast to charge them more. This is the govt controlling something they shouldn't control. The only reason they did under Title II and called the internet a utility was because it's straight up illegal (and they lost in the courts) for the govt to tell Comcast 'You can't charge Netflix/Google more'

The govt should not be allowed to set prices or force companies to restrict the raising of prices to their customers. If the govt wants to keep prices down for Netflix customers they should do it like everything else they influence (like milk prices) - they should subsidize it. We'd call that corporate welfare - although the end result is the same.

The internet should be free and open - not be full of rules that favor only the huge super content providers like Netflix and Google.

 

[Ultraman1966]

Honestly this is a good thing. Please don't confuse the co-oping of the term "net neutrality" with this bill. Turning ISP's into utilities has stiffed invested to the turn of a decrees of $3.6 Billion in just the last year from Tile II. The fact is this just put too much power into the hands of the FCC. The reason Google, Facebook, ETC... was that it was easy for them to influence outcomes by lobbying the FCC. This was the major IT companies will no longer have to won't be able to force ISP to use their bandwidth to carry the massive date loads that are forced on to them. That being said I don't think this is perfect. But to tell the FCC director he should watch his back and hoping he gets killed is messed up. This isn't a change worthy of hating this man for. Get a life and learn what the real issues are out there.

Well said.

The govt wanted to control things so they could appease the tech companies who lobbied them. Say you're adding regulation and control to the internet and people will get angry. Tell them it's 'fair' and call it net neutrality and they'll thank you for it.

Err net neutrality isn't about government control. If you think it actually is then you've fallen hook, line and sinker for the lies and deceits sponsored by the ISPs.

 

[wrathofthenova]

And you have fallen hook, line and sinker for the lies and deceits sponsored by the corrupt federal government.

 

[Evernessince]

89% of US citizens, computer experts, and all the internet based service companies don't want their netflix to go up a few bucks a month.

The govt should not be sticking their nose in and passing laws in the name of 'fairness' to stop anyone from setting their own prices of their product. Net Neutrality allows Netflix and Google (youtube) to use as much of the providers networks as they like without it being legal for Comcast to charge them more. This is the govt controlling something they shouldn't control. The only reason they did under Title II and called the internet a utility was because it's straight up illegal (and they lost in the courts) for the govt to tell Comcast 'You can't charge Netflix/Google more'

The govt should not be allowed to set prices or force companies to restrict the raising of prices to their customers. If the govt wants to keep prices down for Netflix customers they should do it like everything else they influence (like milk prices) - they should subsidize it. We'd call that corporate welfare - although the end result is the same.

The internet should be free and open - not be full of rules that favor only the huge super content providers like Netflix and Google.

NN has nothing to do with setting prices. In fact, the FCC specifically excluded the price setting rule when making ISPs Title II.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/03/12/technology/net-neutrality-rules-explained.html
Link to the FCC's own document that details title II: http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0312/FCC-15-24A1.pdf

If you read the provided links, the FCC uses a process called forbearance to remove many of the statutes of Title II, including bundling and price-setting.

Why people still think this is heavy handed when the document itself states specifically that it's goal is to be light touch and that the FCC choose not to apply many Title 2 statuettes, is beyond me. Please read, at the very least, the document provided by the FCC itself without any spin to it.

 

[EClyde]

You gonna get tired of inovation

 

[TomSEA]

It's not an assumption, it's based on data

https://arstechnica.com/information...-choice-for-many-especially-at-higher-speeds/

If you have a credible link that says otherwise I'd like to see it.

First of all, that data is two 1/2 years old which makes it ancient in technology terms. Also, that article focuses on very high-speed connections. There are several statements in there that confirm what I said about multiple providers. As example:

"the FCC's December 2013 statistics showed that 94 percent of tracts had at least two providers offering 10Mbps download speeds and 1.5Mbps upload speeds. "

And:

"Overall, the FCC counted 91.1 million residential fixed Internet connections as of June 2015, up from 87.6 million in December 2013. A majority now has download speeds of at least 25Mbps, while only about a third of connections were that fast in 2013."

Now it's probably close to 100 million residential fixed internet connections coonsidering we're a month away from 2018.

Bottom line, I'm not buying your "vast majority of Americans only have a single choice of provider" statement. If a dinky town so small it doesn't have a stoplight, located in the middle of nowhere New Mexico tundra has two choices, then to me - that's the norm, not the exception.

 

[Evernessince]

First of all, that data is two 1/2 years old which makes it ancient in technology terms. Also, that article focuses on very high-speed connections. There are several statements in there that confirm what I said about multiple providers. As example:

"the FCC's December 2013 statistics showed that 94 percent of tracts had at least two providers offering 10Mbps download speeds and 1.5Mbps upload speeds. "

And:

"Overall, the FCC counted 91.1 million residential fixed Internet connections as of June 2015, up from 87.6 million in December 2013. A majority now has download speeds of at least 25Mbps, while only about a third of connections were that fast in 2013."

Now it's probably close to 100 million residential fixed internet connections coonsidering we're a month away from 2018.

Bottom line, I'm not buying your "vast majority of Americans only have a single choice of provider" statement. If a dinky town so small it doesn't have a stoplight, located in the middle of nowhere New Mexico tundra has two choices, then to me - that's the norm, not the exception.

ALL data is going to be 1-2 years old when you have large studies. That's not a point against it specifically, just a common fact. If they had made it a smaller study you would have complained about the sample size. You must not be familiar with how studies are certified but let it be know this is common for all segments of the technology field. FYI, infrastructure takes a long time to build out (I would know, I was a verizon contractor), this data is still very relevant. It takes longer than 2 years to significantly increase your network footprint without massive additional spending and hiring, which such an effort would surely make the news. I know for a fact no such effort has been undertaken by Comcast, Verizon, or Charter between 2015 - 2017. Network build out and investment has continued for the most part routinely during that time period.

Also, no those numbers have gotten worse. Remember that this data is before Time Warner and Charter Merger. Two of the largest cable companies merging are going to cause a massive loss in choice, even past what the FCC has already stated was a bad situation. I don't get why you think things have gotten better when 1 out of the 4 major providers are gone helps anyone.

Oh and what's this about the majority of Americans having access to 25Mbps?

"At the FCC's 25Mbps download/3Mbps upload broadband standard, there are no ISPs at all in 30 percent of developed census blocks and only one offering service that fast in 48 percent of the blocks."

30% of all Americans don't even have access to high speed internet and an additional 48% have only one choice of provider. That's 78% of Americans who have one choice of provider or less. You dare to come here with nothing but conjuncture and "oh but it should be much better know". You are obviously bias, the data is right in front of your face and you flat out refuse to look at the truth, instead coming out with your own version of reality. You are pitting your assumptions and projections vs the provided official data.

"Bottom line, I'm not buying your "vast majority of Americans only have a single choice of provider" statement"

You mean you refuse to believe the data? Because at the very least, I'm providing links here, you aren't providing anything to backup your opinion other than conjecture. Like I said earlier, prove me wrong with a credible source.

 

[Avenger001]

Honestly this is a good thing. Please don't confuse the co-oping of the term "net neutrality" with this bill. Turning ISP's into utilities has stiffed invested to the turn of a decrees of $3.6 Billion in just the last year from Tile II. The fact is this just put too much power into the hands of the FCC. The reason Google, Facebook, ETC... was that it was easy for them to influence outcomes by lobbying the FCC. This was the major IT companies will no longer have to won't be able to force ISP to use their bandwidth to carry the massive date loads that are forced on to them. That being said I don't think this is perfect. But to tell the FCC director he should watch his back and hoping he gets killed is messed up. This isn't a change worthy of hating this man for. Get a life and learn what the real issues are out there.

This could very well be Ajit Pai speaking.........
Hurt investment?

2017
https://arstechnica.com/information...-investment-according-to-the-isps-themselves/

https://consumerist.com/2016/12/09/...s-not-as-scary-as-industry-made-it-out-to-be/
2016
https://consumerist.com/2016/12/09/...s-not-as-scary-as-industry-made-it-out-to-be/

https://consumerist.com/2016/02/09/...tment-like-comcast-att-verizon-said-it-would/

 

[wiyosaya]

"Also, how exactly do you expect a pricing war to occur when a vast majority of Americans only have a single choice of provider?"

That's a big assumption which I don't think is close to being true. This isn't 20 or even 5 years ago. 80% of Americans live in urban areas with multiple choices. Even rural areas have multiple choices. I have a good friend who is moving to Santa Rosa, New Mexico next month - population 1,200. You don't get any more rural than that. They have two ISP options: HughesNet & ENMR Co-op. Then there's always the satellite option.

Again, I'm taking a wait and see approach to it. I think people are throwing themselves off the cliff WAY too soon on this.

HughesNet IS the satellite option, and according to their web site, they do not guarantee the speeds they offer. HughesNet is a high-priced joke with data caps, IMO. https://www.hughesnet.com/about/hughesnet-gen5 not much better, IMO, than DSL.

I think it quite interesting that people post straw men they have never researched and just expect that everyone reading their posts will just say, Oh, you are sooooooo right. There is competition in the US broadband market after all.

I've looked into the alternatives, and in my area, a not so small metropolitan area, there is only one widely available ISP that offers true boradband without castrating data caps. Trust me, with the superior service they offer, I would have dropped them long, long, long ago IF there was an option to do so.

There is a fiber service building out in our area, assuming that survives the NN garbage, and IF they get to my address, I drop my current BB provider in a instant. Until then, though, for the vast majority of the some 750,000 residents of this metropolitan area, there is NO choice.

 

[tipstir]

ISP for me 10 mb down and 2 mb up for $14.99 a month. (cleaned out their box so it just has one connection) No CATV from them. I have my own grey box that is my dual amp OTA HD 1080i + 8-way DISB amp since 2012 cut that cord baby. The rest for internet TV. As long as FCC/FTC doesn't effect me I really don't care. I am hardly home to watch any OTA anyway just the weather then recap my favorite shows on internet in HD. ISP gave me 6 months free internet twice funny they actually pay for it. Found loop hole in the system twice. Then after the free it was only $10.99 for 6 months. I am not paying $89.99 for internet. $14.99 is locked into my account.

 

[TomSEA]

"You mean you refuse to believe the data? Because at the very least, I'm providing links here, you aren't providing anything to backup your opinion other than conjecture. Like I said earlier, prove me wrong with a credible source."

No, I don't believe YOU. You act as if 100 million Americans are crying in their beds each night because they don't have internet options. And the website you provided was contradictory to your argument in a number of places, I posted samples of that along with an example of an extreme rural location that had multiple choices.

Listen, I get that you hate this. A lot of people do which is why I prefaced my original post with a "this isn't going to be popular" caveat. BUT until this action shows itself as a truly negative thing that stymies internet development and abuses people with excessive charges, I'm in a totally wait and see position. You on the other hand, are with the sheeple who want to throw themselves off of a cliff because you've already pre-determined that this is a horrible thing, people are going to have to pay millions for access to Facebook, and we're all doomed.

Do you not get that this is government DEREGULATION? In any other category, people beg for that?

 

[cliffordcooley]

I'm with you @TomSEA, I don't understand this huge backlash.

 

[Nero7]

The USA is rid of yet another thing Obama did, good riddance.

One day you'll know. Or you just read it up on Breitbart.

The internet has just been freed.

 

[Evernessince]

"You mean you refuse to believe the data? Because at the very least, I'm providing links here, you aren't providing anything to backup your opinion other than conjecture. Like I said earlier, prove me wrong with a credible source."

No, I don't believe YOU. You act as if 100 million Americans are crying in their beds each night because they don't have internet options. And the website you provided was contradictory to your argument in a number of places, I posted samples of that along with an example of an extreme rural location that had multiple choices.

Listen, I get that you hate this. A lot of people do which is why I prefaced my original post with a "this isn't going to be popular" caveat. BUT until this action shows itself as a truly negative thing that stymies internet development and abuses people with excessive charges, I'm in a totally wait and see position. You on the other hand, are with the sheeple who want to throw themselves off of a cliff because you've already pre-determined that this is a horrible thing, people are going to have to pay millions for access to Facebook, and we're all doomed.

Do you not get that this is government DEREGULATION? In any other category, people beg for that?

You don't need to believe me, look at the data and see for yourself. It's right from the FCC itself.

"I posted samples of that along with an example of an extreme rural location that had multiple choices."

I refuted the one example you provided with data.

"BUT until this action shows itself as a truly negative thing that stymies internet development and abuses people with excessive charges"

We already pay more for less than a majority of first world countries, have more people without access to high speed internet, and a majority of Americans only have one provider choice. If that isn't already truly negative you won't be satisfied until after they've already diced the internet into packages.

"I'm in a totally wait and see position. You on the other hand, are with the sheeple who want to throw themselves off of a cliff because you've already pre-determined that this is a horrible thing"

No, you've already decided your position and obviously no amount of facts is going to convince you. But oh you must be right. Me, the founders of the internet, computer experts across the untied states, and a majority of the population are all wrong. But yes, the guy who can't provide one iota of proof to back up his position is right.

 

[Evernessince]

I'm with you @TomSEA, I don't understand this huge backlash.

Please watch the video I linked on page 1. It's discusses what NN is, what the ISPs have already done in the past to force the FCC's hand into classifying title II, everything.

 

[Puiu]

Do not lose hope. The fight isn't over.

 

[cliffordcooley]

Please watch the video I linked on page 1.

So I can see half or even less of the truth? I'm sorry I can only see removing Obama's **** as a good thing.

 

[Puiu]

"You mean you refuse to believe the data? Because at the very least, I'm providing links here, you aren't providing anything to backup your opinion other than conjecture. Like I said earlier, prove me wrong with a credible source."

No, I don't believe YOU. You act as if 100 million Americans are crying in their beds each night because they don't have internet options. And the website you provided was contradictory to your argument in a number of places, I posted samples of that along with an example of an extreme rural location that had multiple choices.

Listen, I get that you hate this. A lot of people do which is why I prefaced my original post with a "this isn't going to be popular" caveat. BUT until this action shows itself as a truly negative thing that stymies internet development and abuses people with excessive charges, I'm in a totally wait and see position. You on the other hand, are with the sheeple who want to throw themselves off of a cliff because you've already pre-determined that this is a horrible thing, people are going to have to pay millions for access to Facebook, and we're all doomed.

Do you not get that this is government DEREGULATION? In any other category, people beg for that?

You disappoint me... A lot.
Someone like you should know and understand wtf is going on.
You are ignoring simple facts and numbers which I find to be really worrying for someone who works for a big tech website.
No, 100 mill americans aren't crying, but the majority don't want this and they made that fact know in multiple polls and votes. Hell, 4 in 5 republicans are against this stupid vote to remove net neutrality.
It's isn't "deregulation", it's allowing monopolies to grow stronger.

FYI you have official data that shows exactly that... americans don't have choices for high speed internet. And NO, I don't consider 10Mbps to be fast, that's just shitty useless internet. My grandma had access to 25-100Mbps connections from multiple ISP in the countryside out in the boonies. I have access to multiple ISPs offering 1Gbps or more for about 10$. This is what competition looks like.
All you have is access to regional monopolies.

FYI 2 you posted nothing. The data you posted is in our favor not yours.

I find it extremely baffling why you would even try to undermine the severity of what is happening right now. If the FCC was pushing this while also pushing for laws that helped work against regional monopolies then I would agree with you: "to hell with government regulations"... but they are doing the exact opposite, they are consolidating regional monopolies. This is plain and simple treason... the FCC is committing treason against the people it should be protecting and you are defending them.

@cliffordcooley you I understand. you've always been in 100% agreement with what the republicans do even when you know that it is bad. it's been discussed to death why NN is needed. You just don't care because it doesn't affect you directly (at least not yet)

Everything boils down to one thing. The huge monopolies are trying to become stronger by throwing money at Ajit Pai and the republicans. And the republicans bent down and obliged even when they knew that the people who voted for them are against it. That's how desperate they are.

 

[Nero7]

Gotta love how its come down to fear mongering and blatant hate on one side, and on the other we have the rationale of lets wait and see.

 

[Puiu]

Gotta love how its come down to fear mongering and blatant hate on one side, and on the other with have the rationale of lets wait and see.

Wait and see what? What do you expect to see?
Fear mongering and blatant hate is how the republicans got voted but now it is bad?

FYI it's not fear mongering and blatant hate, it's just facts vs lies. You don't hate lies? And the fears came true multiple times in the past and even in the past few months IPS have already confirmed that they will do some of the things that NN blocked.

The pro net neutrality supporters use data and facts. This is something that Ajit Pai never did and all we got from him was that the big ISPs will "promise" not to be "bad". In fact Ajit Pai has been caught lying time and time again.

Why are you in favor of people that blatantly lie in your face?

 

[TomSEA]

Seriously

I'm with you @TomSEA, I don't understand this huge backlash.

Please watch the video I linked on page 1. It's discusses what NN is, what the ISPs have already done in the past to force the FCC's hand into classifying title II, everything.

Seriously...you want EVERYONE to watch ONE extremely partial video - as a definitive explanation - and we're all supposed to except that as fact. Brilliant. Got news for you pal, that doesn't work for me or a helluva lot of other people.

How about we watch the end results and see what happens instead of pretending what MIGHT happen and take action after that? Seriously, are you that short-sighted that you can't wait to see the results?

For one more time, this is government DEREGULATION. Which traditionally people beg for .No government influence in an open market. What's your answer to that which to this point you've never addressed?

 

[cliffordcooley]

@cliffordcooley you I understand. you've always been in 100% agreement with what the republicans do even when you know that it is bad.

I don't see things as republican or democrat. Perhaps it is you who has always been in 100% agreement with the democrats, even when you know that it is bad.

For one more time, this is government DEREGULATION.

That is what confuses me, when it is referred to as "Killing Net-Neutrality". I don't understand how people see going back to the way things was as Killing anything. That's like saying giving people freedom is killing freedom.

 

[complexxL9]

Who appointed Ajit Pai? I mean you got what you wished for.

 

[PetrolHead]

For one more time, this is government DEREGULATION. Which traditionally people beg for .No government influence in an open market.

It's what businesses traditionally beg for. People on the other hand should not be as eager to drive government deregulation, in part because it's not really an open market in many cases. Government regulation essentially means that the people have some control over companies even when the company is in a situation where consumers cannot "vote with their wallet". It's worth noting the part "people have some control"; the government is supposed to represent the people and defend the people's interests, even if it's a flawed system. Companies on the other hand want to make money, period. If they can make a profit selling you poisonous food, placebo medication, cars that are not crash tested etc., they will.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that government deregulation will free you or the internet in some way, it will just free the ISPs to exploit you and their market position in ways that benefits them. Edit: Sure, only time will tell what will happen if the ISPs get what they want, but even if they choose to play nice, you will be in a weaker position than before.

 

[Bubbajim]

This is deregulation, but it's bad deregulation. I'm surprised that so many people have forgotten that the initial rules were put in place because it was discovered that ISPs were starting to do the practices that this repeal will once more allow. Price-gouging and throttling were happening, so regulation was put in place.

I really don't understand the American desire for deregulation at all costs. Yeah, sure, excessive 'red tape' can be burdensome, but surely look at things on a case-by-case basis? This particular piece of regulation was put in place to stop exploitation by huge corporate money-machines. It's hardly like they're there to stifle the little guy. If anything, they're a help to the little-guy.

If regulation stops the healthy functioning of a competitive market, I can understand your frustration. But if regulation is put in place to combat corrupt, monopolistic practices in obviously dysfunctional markets, why should anyone be happy that that protection is lost?

To the people who agree with this repeal on the grounds of unfettered competition in markets: Do you think people should have equal access to the marketplace?