It's official: the FCC has killed net neutrality

[Puiu]

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.
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.

Deregulation only works in monopolistic markets (like where I live). At best in the US you have oligopolies and in most regions it's just monopolies for fast speed internet. You don't need to try and understand, you just need to read about the cold hard facts.

Like I said before, I'm all for the FCC to move towards deregulation, but only after they adopt laws that help with countering the monopolies that current ISP have created (ironically using your money, money they got from the government). But what happened is exactly the opposite. They made it even harder for competition to happen while also giving ISP all of the power in the world to do whatever they want. Comcast already said they want to do fast lanes and removed "paid prioritization" from their net neutrality pledge. So much for their "promise".

There is no "freedom" for the people, it's the exact opposite. This will only make things worse for the people. It's "freedom" for the select few, not yours.

FCC also removed the rules that forced ISPs to tell you the full cost of the contract you will sign (hidden fess FTW) and details about the data caps (alongside other similar rules because they were too "burdensome" for ISPs).

 

[Satish Mallya]

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.

There's your problem - first IT'S NOT THEIR PRODUCT. They are selling access to a marketplace where you can get someone else's product, and now they want to charge based on where you get the actual product from.
Secondly, Google and Netflix ARE NOT USING THE ISP NETWORKS.The people using those networks are the ones requesting the traffic - I.e. the ISPs customers. And they've already paid for the transit. So why would you defend and ISP double dipping?

 

[Scorpionking20]

This is what a third of Americans voted for.

 

[p51d007]

About time! Until 2015, did you have internet? This "regulation" came into being in
2015 by the Obama administration. The FCC rule to kill it, just undoes this over reaching
regulation.

 

[Puiu]

About time! Until 2015, did you have internet? This "regulation" came into being in
2015 by the Obama administration. The FCC rule to kill it, just undoes this over reaching
regulation.

Did you also have apps like Google Wallet and Skype blocked before 2015? Yes
Did you also have ISPs throttling? Yes
Did you also have ISP blocking competing services? Yes
Do 100 million Americans live in areas where every single ISP has admitted to violating net neutrality? Yes
Did ISPs redirect search queries? Yes
Did ISPs block and slow P2P connections? Yes
Did ISPs blocked tethering? Yes
Did Comcast ask for the removal of NN rules so that they can implement fast lanes? Yes (multiple times)

Do you know anything about why the 2015 rules were voted on? No

And that's just a short list of the more important things. It also doesn't cover other rules like the hidden fees and data caps that were introduced together with Title 2.


Seriously! If you are going to make a troll comment at least don't make the people supporting deregulation sound so bad.

 

[wiyosaya]

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.

This has been the republican election strategy for sometime now. When the TEA party helped them get elected in 2012 by promising to deliver everything the TEA party wanted, republicans promptly turned around, raised their middle fingers, and tossed those in the TEA party a lump of coal.

In other words, they promise to deliver what the majority wants, then renig on that promise and deliver exactly the opposite. Just like in this past election, republicans and their fearless leader promised that they were for the little guy and yet their actions clearly indicate that they are doing everything possible to make things much more difficult for the little guy while favoring coporations and the rich.

I find it refreshing that you are not a US citizen, however, you clearly get this. At the same time, I find it uniquely odd that the little guys who voted for the republicans are clearly being bastardized by the republicans that they elected and yet, to paraphrase Billy Idol, "With a rebel yell, they cry more, more, more."

Seriously! If you are going to make a troll comment at least don't make the people supporting deregulation sound so bad.

LOL

 

[wiyosaya]

Major ISPs never innovated before NN, and those supporting the repeal of NN expect that they are going to innovate if the repeal is actually made law? ROTFLOL! To quote Telly Savalas in Kojak, "Yeah, and I'm Mary Poppins!"

 

[Reachable]

This is even worse than it's being made out to be by most parties. The ISPs not only have been given the power to speed up and slow down whoever they wish, but they also have the power to exclude whoever they wish.

Do you think I'm being hyperbolic and hysterical? If so, you're wrong. In the entire history of commerce there has never been a case where somebody didn't go all the way to the end of the leash (or lack of leash.) One of many cases in point: When for-profit prisons were created, a nightmare scenario would have been one of prison corporations lobbying lawmakers to keep drug laws super harsh so that the number of incarcerated individuals wouldn't decrease. Well, that's exactly what happened.

If this isn't checked, ISPs will have the power to keep voices they don't like off the Internet, or at the very least to marginalize them. A nightmare scenario now, but only because a situation has not yet come into full focus where a motivation for such a tyranny might occur.

 

[Evernessince]

Seriously

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?

Wow, now you are calling Wendell partial. Did you even watch the video? Do you even know wendell? They provide sources in the description. Since you've backed down on any claims you can't prove, can you actually show me how Wendell, a YouTuber known for being somber and impartial, is in fact skewing the results?

"Seriously, are you that short-sighted that you can't wait to see the results?"

Like I said earlier, we have already seen what ISPs will do. There are multiple examples presented in the video with sources showing ISPs abusing the lack of NN.

"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?"

Answer to what? The only question you asked here is the one asking me for the question. State what you want answered directly, I'm not playing your questionception games. FYI No market is completely open. Government regulation is required in a capitalist system or else the system will devour itself.

http://governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=13

At some point you had to realize that without IP laws enforced by the government many modern free market constructs wouldn't even exist.

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.

Jesus what's with all the anarchists coming out of the woodwork. So yeah, you're position is "screw everything this guy did including anyone his appointees did because ummm RAGE!". Even if that comes at the cost of yourself of other Americans.

 

[Evernessince]

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.

This is what I don't get. Why is it American's who disagree with them are "crying" or "whiners" but for their issues it isn't. This is American's demeaning each other's rights and it's a disturbing trend. I may not agree with them but it is perfectly within their rights to voice their opinion without me attacking their ability to speak out in the first place. Making fun of the 1st amendment isn't funny.

 

[Evernessince]

About time! Until 2015, did you have internet? This "regulation" came into being in
2015 by the Obama administration. The FCC rule to kill it, just undoes this over reaching
regulation.

Um, this regulation has nearly nothing to do with internet access. It's more about transparency rules for ISPs. Oh, and speaking of Americans who still don't have internet access, the ISPs are holding about 3.4 billion dollars in cash that has yet to be used to extend internet infrastructure to Americans who don't have internet, so yeah....

 

[Abraka]

I bet they'll again blame it on the Russians. Although it's now pretty clear that someone else, and not Russians, has enormous power to fake the votes and/or change the public opinion.

 

[OutlawCecil]

Anybody in support of this is misinformed. There has always been Net Neutrality even if it didn't have a name before 2014-2015. Lots of companies were sued for trying to block or affect competitors prior to Net Neutrality hence why Net Neutrality became a thing, because it was a problem. Now we just threw it out the window along with any protections that have always been in place. We just gave the USA's worst companies full rights to screw over anybody they want, and to profit from it heavily.

 

[Mike89]

People have short memories. When this so called Net Neutrality bill was first passed, there was as much protect against it as there is now to change it back to the way it was. Some people can't sleep at night if they don't have something to protest. When the name was changed to "Net Neutrality", the name stuck like glue and it's all the short memory peeps remember. Now anything that changes the plan is interpreted by these peeps as automatically being anti net neutrality. It's a name, nothing more. It's like saying Apple is an apple when it's a giant take your money company. Net Neutrality is not net neutrality, it's a name that was slung on it. I'm not going to protest about it (unlike the libs, I have better things to do), I'll take a wait and see approach just like I did when it was changed in the first place.

 

[Evernessince]

People have short memories. When this so called Net Neutrality bill was first passed, there was as much protect against it as there is now to change it back to the way it was. Some people can't sleep at night if they don't have something to protest. When the name was changed to "Net Neutrality", the name stuck like glue and it's all the short memory peeps remember. Now anything that changes the plan is interpreted by these peeps as automatically being anti net neutrality. It's a name, nothing more. It's like saying Apple is an apple when it's a giant take your money company. Net Neutrality is not net neutrality, it's a name that was slung on it. I'm not going to protest about it (unlike the libs, I have better things to do), I'll take a wait and see approach just like I did when it was changed in the first place.

That seems to be a common excuse for uninformed people. If you can elaborate on your points, I'd like to debate them. So please go ahead and extrapolate specifics.

 

[OutlawCecil]

I'm not going to protest about it (unlike the libs, I have better things to do), I'll take a wait and see approach just like I did when it was changed in the first place.

I'd really like to hear your points too. Regardless of the name, It was put in place to ensure all sites and services are treated equally and can't be prioritized. So please, explain why it's not named correctly and how we're all confused.

 

[Joe Blow]

Net Neutrality is something only Leftist turds, Democrats and techies who think they know something support. And only because Obama, another Marxist/Leftist turd brought about.

In reality, NN itself brings censorship and moves the Internet under the Dictator's Club (that being the United Nations) control. We never needed NN before and bring it about didn't help us in any way.

Wake up, people!

Good riddens!

 

[OutlawCecil]

Net Neutrality is something only Leftist turds, Democrats and techies who think they know something support. And only because Obama, another Marxist/Leftist turd brought about.

In reality, NN itself brings censorship and moves the Internet under the Dictator's Club (that being the United Nations) control. We never needed NN before and bring it about didn't help us in any way.

Wake up, people!

Good riddens!

You are misinformed on many things here. Yes, I am a techie and interestingly enough, I know a thing or two about techie stuff like this. In what way is NN censorship? Do you understand WITHOUT NN there will be censorship by ISPs? I think you have that backwards.

As for "we never needed it before", read my earlier post. It's always been there and companies have been sued for trying to block their competitors. NN just never had a name and wasn't made clear. But the internet has always been equal for everyone before now.

 

[cliffordcooley]

You are misinformed on many things here.

If you got to the bottom of it, everyone is misinformed. So keep pointing your misinformed finger all you like. Because at the end of the day, I know you are included with the rest of us.

 

[OutlawCecil]

If you got to the bottom of it, everyone is misinformed. So keep pointing your misinformed finger all you like. Because at the end of the day, I know you are included with the rest of us.

I'm trying to have a discussion here. I am pretty informed on this stuff and am trying to understand where your confusion is coming from. There's lots of sources out there that explain NN and they all confirm one another, so unless you are Trump or somebody who stands to make a profit from getting rid of NN, there shouldn't be any confusion on this topic. I'm completely open if you'd like to point out where I'm incorrect on anything. -or you can keep your fingers in your ears...

 

[Evernessince]

Net Neutrality is something only Leftist turds, Democrats and techies who think they know something support. And only because Obama, another Marxist/Leftist turd brought about.

In reality, NN itself brings censorship and moves the Internet under the Dictator's Club (that being the United Nations) control. We never needed NN before and bring it about didn't help us in any way.

Wake up, people!

Good riddens!

Lol, so the guy who created the internet, Tim Burners Lee is "techies who think they know something"? Thank you for the comment, all it does it prove how radical a position you are taking and shows everyone that anyone associated with that view can only think in malicies. If the only argument you can bring up against NN is name calling and breitbart rhetoric (which are often one and the same), you've already lost. I've seen a trend where people who oppose NN are good at name calling and bad at citing actual sources to back anything up.

 

[wiyosaya]

Net Neutrality is something only Leftist turds, Democrats and techies who think they know something support. And only because Obama, another Marxist/Leftist turd brought about.

In reality, NN itself brings censorship and moves the Internet under the Dictator's Club (that being the United Nations) control. We never needed NN before and bring it about didn't help us in any way.

Wake up, people!

Good riddens!

Ah, so we have a bully. Cannot present a valid argument based on actual fact so starts name calling. You'll find that people typically do not listen to comments like these. Name calling is not working for 45, it won't work here either.

 

[ddferrari]

I know this won't be a popular opinion, but I'm taking a wait and see on this. I know in the tech world people are wringing their hands and declaring it Armageddon. But two things from my own personal observations:

1) This net neutrality act has only been in place for two years to begin with. There was no price gouging going on prior to that as far as I can tell. Some ISP's were doing some throttling, but once that was identified, the guilty ISP's knocked it off because they were losing customers as a result.

2) People are automatically assuming ISP's are going to start charging outrageous prices for various access and limiting access. However, when deregulation has happened in the past, more often than not, it sent competing companies into a pricing war, costs went down and more options were made available to attract consumers. Free market at work.

And as the article mentioned, nothing is going to happen immediately anyway. State lawsuits are already being filed, so there's at least a year's worth of legal actions before it goes into effect.

If things do go south and ISP's take advantage of it, I'll register my complaint via my vote at the next election.

Agreed. The TLDR version is: let's not start the bitching until we see negative consequences. There may be many, or there may be none. I'm not losing any sleep over it yet.

 

[Evernessince]

Agreed. The TLDR version is: let's not start the bitching until we see negative consequences. There may be many, or there may be none. I'm not losing any sleep over it yet.

There already have been issues before NN existed, that's exactly why it was put in place. It wouldn't have been needed otherwise. Either people like you are hoping that companies don't go back to being scummy (which isn't going to happen) or they don't care because they don't think it'll affect them (like you).

"I'm not losing any sleep over it yet"

Why are you commenting then? To demean other's opinions. You are coming to a discussion thread and then claiming "I don't care about discussion guys". Real smart.

 

[drjekelmrhyde]

Next time VOTE. The leopard is eating your face and you like it.