It's official: the FCC has killed net neutrality

OutlawCecil

TS Evangelist
Next time VOTE. The leopard is eating your face and you like it.
Trump didn't get the popular vote, most Americans didn't want him.
Nobody voted to put Ajit Pai in charge of the FCC, Trump chose him.
The vast majority of individuals and companies protested and petitioned to keep NN, again, our votes didn't matter.
seeing a pattern here?
 

Lionvibez

TS Evangelist
Lol after reading most of the post on this.

Its pretty clear some of you really don't understand what is going on.

The internet is a great resource do more research its doesn't hurt.
 

Puiu

TS Evangelist
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.
You are not losing sleep? gosh golly gee willikers, you must be using a lot of sleeping pills.
 

NatalieEGH

TS Rookie
I think this is absolutely wonderful. Why you ask?

The internet structure in the United States was paid for with public funds. Sometimes it was directly, sometimes is was in the form of tax credits (a credit means for each dollar in credit, it is as you actually already paid that much in taxes, so it counts for taxes paid and refunds). As the private businesses are now basically claiming the right to buy faster speeds they should have to start repaying the federal government. Further the federal government needs to stop assessing a fee on all communications to private individuals and businesses (not in the internet business like ISPs), as the internet is no longer to be treated as a public property in the United States.

Based on usage rate charges, I think a tax of 50% of say $10 per gigabyte of enhanced data delivered compared to that provided to none premium sites and customers.

Now what to do with all these extra billions in tax revenue. Hmmm. We all know the government will not use it to pay down the national debt. Even if they claim they will, it is just that they will spend money elsewhere, so let us decide where this money will be spent and require it only to be spent there, that way they cannot reduce funding below the level of the revenue received from this source.

We could set up free dental and health clinics around the country. It was save the government money because not having to pay hospital rates (medical personnel are salaried at the government clinics).

Another idea would be build a medication manufacturing plant. Generic versions of all medications on the Medicare Part D and Veterans Administration medication schedules could be manufactured. They would be provided to the appropriate patients. This would eliminate price gouging such as the course of treatment for hepatitis C that was being sold in India for something like $1200 but was sold to the Veterans Administration for something like $300,000. The exact same medication, the exact same number of doses. Yes, the facility would cost probably 2 or 3 billion dollars to build and maybe a billion dollars a year to staff and run (make the medications) but it would save the federal government 10's if not 100's of billions of dollars per year. It would also save individuals money because they would no longer have to pay for Medicare Part D insurance or at worst it would be paid directly to the US government (another federal revenue stream) not to private insurance companies.

I do not know about Net Neutrality in other countries. I do not know whether their internet structure was built with private or public funds. But as I see it, in the United States, it was built with public funds and therefore is a public resource.

This change to me is like if they came down and said, "The federal highway and interstate system are now going to prioritize private usage in municipal areas. Emergency services and publicly owned vehicles get unlimited access at all times. Privately Owned Vehicles (POVs) that are not used for commercial purposes get unlimited access during non-congested times (see definition below). During congested times they must stay out of the far left lane except for passing or when so directed by law enforcement personal due to emergency conditions and/or accident. POVs engaged in commercial business are restricted from the federal highway and interstate system during congested periods unless they have a class C permit (allowing access to far right lane only), a class B permit (allows access to the far two right lanes), or a class A permit (allows access to all lanes). A class C or above permit will allow access the the far left lane within 2 miles of a exit on the left side of the road. Blah blah blah."

Public should be freely sharable by all citizen equally. Private, well they are welcome to make their own rules. This issue of ending Net Neutrality is mixing the two and that is wrong.
 
Last edited:

sevenday4

TS Rookie
There's a misunderstanding about Net neutrality, the repeal actually is the Net neutrality. Obama misnamed his agenda to neutralize the free Internet and hamper our freedom of speech. You all need to do some research! Mr. AP was actually trying to free up the Internet. In Obama tried to give our Internet structure over to the EU and China, restricting what we can see or post on the Internet. Also, the so called Net neutrality actually throttling Internet connections to a crawl while the governments and so called elites can have speeds up to four times the speed of us common people. And let's stop calling each other stupid names, we are not children so please stop it. Until we see negative results from this repeal of this so called Net neutrality, I am not going to loose sleep or my mind over this. And do your own research to see if what this so called Net neutrality actually is and stop trying to ask for links from so called reputable sources. Look at this document for yourselves. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-347927A1.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiG44X8p4_YAhViF2MKHbdkDpoQFjABegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw1OuOGj1DWn7mRvriEqxHdt
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: cliffordcooley

Evernessince

地獄らしい人間動物園
Thank you!
It's sad when long time members of techspot are so desperate that they don't check to see that the commentator they are thanking has created their account just for posting that single comment. Classic example of confirmation bias.

The link he provided is a document written by Pai but that should be obvious given it is the document that defined his rhetoric and doesn't present anything that hasn't already been debunked. Again though, if you can cite specific examples, I will happily disprove them.
 

sevenday4

TS Rookie
It's sad when long time members of techspot are so desperate that they don't check to see that the commentator they are thanking has created their account just for posting that single comment. Classic example of confirmation bias.

The link he provided is a document written by Pai but that should be obvious given it is the document that defined his rhetoric and doesn't present anything that hasn't already been debunked. Again though, if you can cite specific examples, I will happily disprove them.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-347927A1.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiG44X8p4_YAhViF2MKHbdkDpoQFjABegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw1OuOGj1DWn7mRvriEqxHdt this document isn't from Pai, nor is it his so called rhetorical bias. Read this document for yourselve! This isn't a political issue ⚠, politics is the problem and they are trying to take your God given rights from us.
 
Last edited:

Evernessince

地獄らしい人間動物園
Our conversation on this topic has been over since the last time I acknowledged your comments. You speak of my bias while ignoring your own.
It has? Last time I checked, I'm still awaiting sources to backup your claims. As it stand right now your position is "wait and see" even though abundant evidence has been provided that ISPs have already screwed over Americans in the past. I asked you what makes you think they won't do that again but all I got were crickets while you silently "like" comments that are also unstained, even from brand new accounts. It just further proves your confirmation bias.
 

Evernessince

地獄らしい人間動物園
Um I did and you didn't or else you would have noticed

From the document

"
This document is being released as part of a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding. Any
presentations or views on the subject expressed to the Commission or its staff"

The current commission is the one who makes documents like these, as always.

Pai is the current commissioner so yeah...

Thank you for proving my point.

EDIT **

as additional proof, that document is in addendum to this

https://www.fcc.gov/restoring-internet-freedom-comments-wc-docket-no-17-108

Which is the original PRM Pai submitted to repeal NN.

It's the same controversial item that had comment issues

http://www.broadbandforamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/FCC-Restoring-Internet-Freedom-Comments-Analysis-083017.pdf

It's even listed on the FCC
 
Last edited:

sevenday4

TS Rookie
Um I did and you didn't or else you would have noticed

From the document

"
This document is being released as part of a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding. Any
presentations or views on the subject expressed to the Commission or its staff"

The current commission is the one who makes documents like these, as always.

Pai is the current commissioner so yeah...

Thank you for proving my point.
No, I haven't "made your point ", You didn't read all 220 pages did you? I may be new to this forum, but that doesn't mean I don't know what is going on. I also think before making opinions where ever I make them. But I'm not going to stoop to your level. Techspot isn't the only place I get my news on technology and it isn't the only source either
Open Internet Order - Federal Communications ...
PDFhttps://transition.fcc.gov › 2015
Read this document, it is the original from the government BEFORE Pai became commissioner.
 

Evernessince

地獄らしい人間動物園
No, I haven't "made your point ", You didn't read all 220 pages did you? I may be new to this forum, but that doesn't mean I don't know what is going on. I also think before making opinions where ever I make them. But I'm not going to stoop to your level. Techspot isn't the only place I get my news on technology and it isn't the only source either.
You claimed the document wasn't submitted by Pai when every source on the internet says it was. You can get mad all you want but the fact is you lied. Great, get news elsewhere that confirms your bias.
 

sevenday4

TS Rookie
You claimed the document wasn't submitted by Pai when every source on the internet says it was. You can get mad all you want but the fact is you lied. Great, get news elsewhere that confirms your bias.
You didn't put my whole quote in your statement. And no, I am not mad. I am quite sane. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-344614A1.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjYpu_3wY_YAhVI8GMKHZaYA6gQFjACegQIChAB&usg=AOvVaw1E41hcq96C_zsYg1mS2OYT
This is a document from 2015.
 

Puiu

TS Evangelist
Are you smoking weed? The first thing it literally says is "April 27, 2017". You can even find the name "Ajit Pai" on page 16.

This is just funny and pretty much validates everything pro NN have been saying about people who support Ajit Pai :D Only lies and misinformation just so that ISPs can gain their freedom to make more money on the backs of their subscribers... who can't change ISPs because they have no alternatives. Monopolies FTW!
 

Evernessince

地獄らしい人間動物園
Both of those documents are the same thing. In both of them "WC Docket No. 17-108". Please read the title next time.

Also, I'm not seeing the 2015 dated document on the FCC website for that docket item

https://www.fcc.gov/document/wireline-competition-bureau-opens-wc-docket-no-17-108

I don't know where you got it but it's not their website, as it clearly states it was released in 2017 directly from the FCC.
 

ddferrari

TS Maniac
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.
My goodness, someone's hyper-sensitive. If you want to start wringing your hands and pacing around the room over an issue that may or may not ever arise, go for it. Of course, your worry won't change a thing- other than your anxiety levels.

I'm not sure what "issues" you experienced before NN, but I haven't seen any change- either positive or negative- since it was created. So, if and when I see actual negative consequences, then I will choose to put energy into it. It's odd that you find a logical, rational viewpoint demeaning.

A discussion has to have two sides. Just because I'm not jumping on the Doomsday train doesn't mean I don't care. It means I disagree with your "Let's all panic now" approach, rather than my "Let's wait and see" approach. That's why I'm commenting.

"Worrying is like paying a debt you don't owe." - Mark Twain
 

heathen3017

TS Rookie
Dear Ajit Pai,

You have screwed over the American public. You have screwed over American businesses (with the small exception of Internet providers), and you have screwed over future businesses that have yet to form. You have accomplished all of this with your blind devotion to declassifying Internet providers as no longer a utility.

Just how have you accomplished this Mr. Pai? Let's recap:

For starters, you have lied to and/or misled the American public with your three most often used rhetoric pieces: a) The Internet was just fine before Net Neutrality in 2015, b) the government shouldn't micromanage Internet providers, and c) it keeps Internet providers from building infrastructure.

For starters, you claim that the Internet was just fine for 20 years until the Net Neutrality was put into force by the FCC classifying Internet providers as public utilities in 2015. What you fail to mention is that the reason the FCC elected to classify Internet providers as a utility to enforce Net Neutrality is because prior to that, the FCC was already enforcing Net Neutrality rules on its own and in 2011, Verizon sued the FCC for doing so because it wasn't classified as a utility and thus the FCC had no authority to impose Net Neutrality rules. In 2014, the Federal Courts agreed and subsequently, for a short duration, there was no Net Neutrality. It was after the Federal Court loss that the FCC opted to reclassify Internet providers (within the boundaries of the law mind you) and thus officially be able to enforce Net Neutrality "properly".

And just what did happen *IMMEDIATELY* after the courts ruled in favor of Verizon on the Net Neutrality issues? I personally have read of many instances where several users, primarily Verizon customers, that had their Netflix performance *INSTANTLY* degraded. These performance degradations were then instantly "overcome" when NetFlix opted to pay Verizon more money to "feed the pipeline", or when some users opted to use VPN's.

By the way Mr. Pai, weren't you previously an Associate General Counsel for Verizon? Granted it was years before the lawsuit, but it's very strange how your alignment is so far towards Verizon's side, that you won't listen to general consensus and the masses when it comes to the subject of Net Neutrality. I'm not a comic book junkie, but one of my favorite quotes comes from Batman: "I don't believe in coincidences"

Your misguided notion that Net Neutrality is somehow "micromanaging" the Internet providers. Mr. Pai, I'd like for you to explain to the general public just exactly how telling Internet providers to "keep your hands off traffic" and "you can't discriminate against traffic" is in any way, shape, or form something that can be construed as micromanaging. In fact, it's the exact opposite of micromanaging. In essence, it's saying build it, sell it, and leave it alone. That's as far as opposite to "micromanaging" as you can get.

Lastly, when it comes to your assertion that capital investment has been harmed by Net Neutrality, the research you cite as a backup is in direct contrast to what the ISP's themselves are reporting to their investors. A more complete notion of this can be found here:

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/05/title-ii-hasnt-hurt-network-investment-according-to-the-isps-themselves/

It would seem that every one of your notions for getting rid of Net Neutrality is nothing but a lie or at best, a misrepresentation, and for me, questionable motive.

In addition, under all of those years of the Net Neutrality that wasn't, booming Internet companies have come to the forefront of American lore... Amazon, ebay, Netflix, Google, Apple's Itunes and App store, and many more. You are correct in saying that these companies boomed when the FCC had not classified the Internet as a utility until 2015, but they did come about during the time when the FCC was enforcing its own Net Neutrality rules before your former employer sued to end that.

Now what happens? Can Netflix once again pay up more money to not have its speed degraded like before? Yes it can. But you know what that means? It means that customers have to pay more for Netflix to compensate for the increased costs, and/or Netflix has to curtail investment and capital spending.... and that's just one company. Compound that by the many companies that dominate the landscape for users: Walmart, Target, Amazon, Apple, Netflix, ebay, etc... all have increased costs to get their products and services to people and every one of them will have to increase their prices to consumers for literally everything that is consumed via the Internet.

With one fell swoop, you have ravaged the pocketbooks of every consumer in America, many times over.

And what about the next innovative Internet company? Had Net Neutrality rules not been enforced at the time, we would not have Netflix today, or any number of other Internet born companies. So that means the next new Nextflix 2.0, or whoever has the next great idea, will probably not be able to afford to provide it to customers because it doesn't have the resources to "pay up" to Verizon, Comcast, and others.

Mr. Pai, you have done the office of FCC Chairman a disgrace. According to the FCC's website, the FCC is supposed to be "Promoting competition, innovation and investment in broadband services and facilities". What you have accomplished this past week is the complete opposite of that.

Perhaps one day, when you or a family member need something critical, and do not have access to it because of what you've "accomplished" this past week, you will remember what you have done and the longstanding and grandiose effects from doing so. I just hope that when it does, nobody in your family is hurt because of it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Evernessince

sevenday4

TS Rookie
My goodness, someone's hyper-sensitive. If you want to start wringing your hands and pacing around the room over an issue that may or may not ever arise, go for it. Of course, your worry won't change a thing- other than your anxiety levels.

I'm not sure what "issues" you experienced before NN, but I haven't seen any change- either positive or negative- since it was created. So, if and when I see actual negative consequences, then I will choose to put energy into it. It's odd that you find a logical, rational viewpoint demeaning.

A discussion has to have two sides. Just because I'm not jumping on the Doomsday train doesn't mean I don't care. It means I disagree with your "Let's all panic now" approach, rather than my "Let's wait and see" approach. That's why I'm commenting.

"Worrying is like paying a debt you don't owe." - Mark Twain
I agree with you. But those who are saying why we are entering into this discussion are those who think free speach for them only. I have seen censoreship coming from those who don't want to hear someone's else opinion and use names or put them down. I am in agreement, I have seen nothing to worry about this until it is time to. But I have seen issues when we did have this 'Net Neutrality' when the UN was given the power to control the Internet. I was even attacked because I made a comment on this thread for the first time. When we are attacked, it makes me wonder if the real 'neutrality' is the neutrality of our freedom of speech.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ddferrari

heathen3017

TS Rookie
Dear Ajit Pai,

You have screwed over the American public. You have screwed over American businesses (with the small exception of Internet providers), and you have screwed over future businesses that have yet to form. You have accomplished all of this with your blind devotion to declassifying Internet providers as no longer a utility.

Just how have you accomplished this Mr. Pai? Let's recap:

For starters, you have lied to and/or misled the American public with your three most often used rhetoric pieces: a) The Internet was just fine before Net Neutrality in 2015, b) the government shouldn't micromanage Internet providers, and c) it keeps Internet providers from building infrastructure.

For starters, you claim that the Internet was just fine for 20 years until the Net Neutrality was put into force by the FCC classifying Internet providers as public utilities in 2015. What you fail to mention is that the reason the FCC elected to classify Internet providers as a utility to enforce Net Neutrality is because prior to that, the FCC was already enforcing Net Neutrality rules on its own and in 2011, Verizon sued the FCC for doing so because it wasn't classified as a utility and thus the FCC had no authority to impose Net Neutrality rules. In 2014, the Federal Courts agreed and subsequently, for a short duration, there was no Net Neutrality. It was after the Federal Court loss that the FCC opted to reclassify Internet providers (within the boundaries of the law mind you) and thus officially be able to enforce Net Neutrality "properly".

And just what did happen *IMMEDIATELY* after the courts ruled in favor of Verizon on the Net Neutrality issues? I personally have read of many instances where several users, primarily Verizon customers, that had their Netflix performance *INSTANTLY* degraded. These performance degradations were then instantly "overcome" when NetFlix opted to pay Verizon more money to "feed the pipeline", or when some users opted to use VPN's.

By the way Mr. Pai, weren't you previously an Associate General Counsel for Verizon? Granted it was years before the lawsuit, but it's very strange how your alignment is so far towards Verizon's side, that you won't listen to general consensus and the masses when it comes to the subject of Net Neutrality. I'm not a comic book junkie, but one of my favorite quotes comes from Batman: "I don't believe in coincidences"

Your misguided notion that Net Neutrality is somehow "micromanaging" the Internet providers. Mr. Pai, I'd like for you to explain to the general public just exactly how telling Internet providers to "keep your hands off traffic" and "you can't discriminate against traffic" is in any way, shape, or form something that can be construed as micromanaging. In fact, it's the exact opposite of micromanaging. In essence, it's saying build it, sell it, and leave it alone. That's as far as opposite to "micromanaging" as you can get.

Lastly, when it comes to your assertion that capital investment has been harmed by Net Neutrality, the research you cite as a backup is in direct contrast to what the ISP's themselves are reporting to their investors. A more complete notion of this can be found here:

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/05/title-ii-hasnt-hurt-network-investment-according-to-the-isps-themselves/

It would seem that every one of your notions for getting rid of Net Neutrality is nothing but a lie or at best, a misrepresentation, and for me, questionable motive.

In addition, under all of those years of the Net Neutrality that wasn't, booming Internet companies have come to the forefront of American lore... Amazon, ebay, Netflix, Google, Apple's Itunes and App store, and many more. You are correct in saying that these companies boomed when the FCC had not classified the Internet as a utility until 2015, but they did come about during the time when the FCC was enforcing its own Net Neutrality rules before your former employer sued to end that.

Now what happens? Can Netflix once again pay up more money to not have its speed degraded like before? Yes it can. But you know what that means? It means that customers have to pay more for Netflix to compensate for the increased costs, and/or Netflix has to curtail investment and capital spending.... and that's just one company. Compound that by the many companies that dominate the landscape for users: Walmart, Target, Amazon, Apple, Netflix, ebay, etc... all have increased costs to get their products and services to people and every one of them will have to increase their prices to consumers for literally everything that is consumed via the Internet.

With one fell swoop, you have ravaged the pocketbooks of every consumer in America, many times over.

And what about the next innovative Internet company? Had Net Neutrality rules not been enforced at the time, we would not have Netflix today, or any number of other Internet born companies. So that means the next new Nextflix 2.0, or whoever has the next great idea, will probably not be able to afford to provide it to customers because it doesn't have the resources to "pay up" to Verizon, Comcast, and others.

Mr. Pai, you have done the office of FCC Chairman a disgrace. According to the FCC's website, the FCC is supposed to be "Promoting competition, innovation and investment in broadband services and facilities". What you have accomplished this past week is the complete opposite of that.

Perhaps one day, when you or a family member need something critical, and do not have access to it because of what you've "accomplished" this past week, you will remember what you have done and the longstanding and grandiose effects from doing so. I just hope that when it does, nobody in your family is hurt because of it.
 

Evernessince

地獄らしい人間動物園
My goodness, someone's hyper-sensitive. If you want to start wringing your hands and pacing around the room over an issue that may or may not ever arise, go for it. Of course, your worry won't change a thing- other than your anxiety levels.

I'm not sure what "issues" you experienced before NN, but I haven't seen any change- either positive or negative- since it was created. So, if and when I see actual negative consequences, then I will choose to put energy into it. It's odd that you find a logical, rational viewpoint demeaning.

A discussion has to have two sides. Just because I'm not jumping on the Doomsday train doesn't mean I don't care. It means I disagree with your "Let's all panic now" approach, rather than my "Let's wait and see" approach. That's why I'm commenting.

"Worrying is like paying a debt you don't owe." - Mark Twain
the 3 other anti-nn posters said the exact same thing and you obviously did not read those posts before jumping into this thread. You are nearly verbatim saying the exact same thing and I replied with examples of ISPs abusing the lack of regulation. You're a big boy and can read the other posts here, I'm not going to trout those out for the four time. It's not a question of if, they already have in the past pre-NN.