The FCC Has Repealed Net Neutrality

cptnjarhead said:
Having the feds regulate the internet... the largest medium of free speech ever to exist in America or human history is not bunk. If the ISP's are as you say... we will see....
Click to expand...
You keep saying "regulate the internet," but that's a misnomer out of your mouth and an intentionally misleading spin out of the mouth of whatever right-wing pimple you're parroting.

The CONTENT of the internet is where the "free speech" and "free market" exist. NN aimed to prevent ISPs from manipulating people's ACCESS TO CONTENT in ways that advance their business or political interests.

Tomorrow, if your local broadband ISP decides they want to block all the conservative news sites on the net for their users because they want to ingratiate themselves to some commie in our government, they can do that now with impunity. NN would have prevented it. Where's your free speech now?

If your broadband carrier offers video streaming services and decides that Netflix, Hulu, and YouTube all hurt their bottom line, they can halt those services on their network and there will be no legal recourse for you or the content providers. There's your idea of the "free market" in action: what will you do? Switch to a much crappier secondary ISP with prices and services so different they may as well not be in the same market?
 
VanGoghComplex said:
NN aimed to prevent ISPs from manipulating people's ACCESS TO CONTENT in ways that advance their business or political interests.
Click to expand...
Show me who was denied access to content previous to NN?... talk about misnomer. Just like the misnomer about Affordable health care...and the scary stories of people being denied health care...notice how they never used the words "medical care" our healthcare/medical care was the best in the world before ACA it was affordable already before the gov got involved. The government is the problem...
 
Last edited:
I am so glad all you guys screaming about, "THE SKY IS FALLING" have a hard time remembering the days of the internet before 2015.

Damn, it was soooooooooooo bad.


not.
 
cptnjarhead said:
Show me who was denied access to content previous to NN?... talk about misnomer. Just like the misnomer about Affordable health care...and the scary stoired of people being denied health care...notice how they never used the words "medical care" our healthcare/medical care was the best in the world before ACA it was affordable already before the gov got involved. The government is the problem...
Click to expand...
Here's one: https://consumerist.com/2014/02/23/netflix-agrees-to-pay-comcast-to-end-slowdown/
 
jeeze really?

The Netflix / Comcast deal had to do with upgrading network connection to Netflix to handle the MASSIVE bandwidth consumption of streaming content.

If Netflix didn't help absorb the cost (which gets passed on to consummers of Netflix through your subscriptions) , then Comcast has to fully absorb the cost. WHICH GETS PASSED ON TO ANY USER, EVEN NON-NETFLIX USERS.

Why is this a problem? I use Netflix. I support this model. I would rather Netflix have to pay to support network upgrades (and by extension Netflix users) rather than Grandma down the street who doesn't use Netflix but would end up paying higher costs to Comcast. At least with the Netflix deal, Netflix and Comcast negotiate it.
 
So the people spouting this "before 2015 everything was fine" nonsense - What does it hurt by having NN in place? That's the flip side to the question I hear about the internet being "free" again, what has actually happened for you to dislike it so much?
 
Bdonedge said:
So the people spouting this "before 2015 everything was fine" nonsense - What does it hurt by having NN in place? That's the flip side to the question I hear about the internet being "free" again, what has actually happened for you to dislike it so much?
Click to expand...

Making sure providers can't censor content is fine. This law was much more than that. It also did not apply to everyone. Companies like Google and Facebook could/can still censor what they want, and supported NN since it didn't apply to them. Funny, the idea of NN being applicable to Google et al.....it was fought.
 
thebufenator said:
jeeze really?

The Netflix / Comcast deal had to do with upgrading network connection to Netflix to handle the MASSIVE bandwidth consumption of streaming content.

If Netflix didn't help absorb the cost (which gets passed on to consummers of Netflix through your subscriptions) , then Comcast has to fully absorb the cost. WHICH GETS PASSED ON TO ANY USER, EVEN NON-NETFLIX USERS.

Why is this a problem? I use Netflix. I support this model. I would rather Netflix have to pay to support network upgrades (and by extension Netflix users) rather than Grandma down the street who doesn't use Netflix but would end up paying higher costs to Comcast. At least with the Netflix deal, Netflix and Comcast negotiate it.
Click to expand...
You can explain and rationalize it all you want. In the end, Comcast was throttling content to users from a specific content provider in order to advance it's own business interests. The better move on Comcast's part would have been to make a little less profit that year and increase the capacity of their network as a matter of course, but that's not really the topic here.

If you don't see the potential for abusive, monopolistic, anti-competitive practices in allowing ISPs to block, throttle, or speed up content to end users with impunity, I believe there are some fundamental economic concepts you need to brush up on.
 
thebufenator said:
Making sure providers can't censor content is fine. This law was much more than that. It also did not apply to everyone. Companies like Google and Facebook could/can still censor what they want, and supported NN since it didn't apply to them. Funny, the idea of NN being applicable to Google et al.....it was fought.
Click to expand...
That's because COMPANIES LIKE GOOGLE AND FACEBOOK ARE NOT ISPS! Any website operator has the freedom to decide what's on their site! The whole POINT of NN was to prevent ISPs from exercising their technical capability to manipulate content delivery in their favor!

If you, my fellow right-wingers, thought Net Neutrality was designed to keep your conservative accounts from being banned on Twitter, 1.) you've been FUCKING LIED TO by dickfaces like Idjit Pie, and 2.) no wonder you think NN is such a joke; it was never designed to do anything like that!
 
davethehedgehog said:
Since Theresa May seems to have an desperate urge to eagerly offer to suck every major power's cock for a pat on the head.... yes, it will matter to you eventually.

For me, it's less about the actual contents of what's been done here, and more about the blatant disregard shown for the public's opinion. Much like Brexit, the will of the people is what should matter, whether the decision the people made is right or wrong, otherwise you further disenfranchise an already jaded public. It's not up to morons like this FCC fool to ignore what is a clear statement of opinion of the public and make the call in the people's best interests. He is a public servant after all.
Click to expand...

Have you seen her face, or worse, her mouth?

Who the hell will take her offer?

Oh wait! It was a metaphor? I guess then we will be screwed eventually then :(
 
thebufenator said:
jeeze really?

The Netflix / Comcast deal had to do with upgrading network connection to Netflix to handle the MASSIVE bandwidth consumption of streaming content.

If Netflix didn't help absorb the cost (which gets passed on to consummers of Netflix through your subscriptions) , then Comcast has to fully absorb the cost. WHICH GETS PASSED ON TO ANY USER, EVEN NON-NETFLIX USERS.

Why is this a problem? I use Netflix. I support this model. I would rather Netflix have to pay to support network upgrades (and by extension Netflix users) rather than Grandma down the street who doesn't use Netflix but would end up paying higher costs to Comcast. At least with the Netflix deal, Netflix and Comcast negotiate it.
Click to expand...

So this is what happens when Comcast and the FCC completely brainwashes our citizens.
 
VanGoghComplex said:
You can explain and rationalize it all you want. In the end, Comcast was throttling content to users from a specific content provider in order to advance it's own business interests.
Click to expand...

Comcast was not throttling content.

Imagine if you will.....increased network usage.........consuming more bandwidth. It's a crazy thought, but possibly, just possibly, increased traffic requires increased bandwidth. JUST MAYBE. The articles about the Netflix / Comcast deal SPECIFICALLY talk about Netflix wanting new special direct connects to Comcast. Which required money. Which the two companies worked out. In a free market.
 
VanGoghComplex said:
I don't know what to think about that, but it's outside the scope of a discussion on the Net Neutrality laws.
Click to expand...

Okay then, how about the "throttling" of Netflix? Those articles specifically talk about new Netflix direct connects to Comcast. Bypassing other providers. Which cost money.
 
thebufenator said:
Which also means manipulating search results. Do you think Google should be able to manipulate search results?
Click to expand...

Do you think search results grow on trees? Did google copy them verbatim from Newton's Principia? Are they defined in the U.S. Code? Google creates the search results. How are they supposed to do that without manipulating them?

I guess it's very confusing to certain people that websites are not considered ISPs? The difference between a website deciding what to display and an ISP deciding what to display is you can always go to another website as long as you have an ISP. If your ISP refuses to show a website, you're SOL.
 
Bdonedge said:
So the people spouting this "before 2015 everything was fine" nonsense - What does it hurt by having NN in place? That's the flip side to the question I hear about the internet being "free" again, what has actually happened for you to dislike it so much?
Click to expand...

The problem is they forget that there were rules in place from 2010 to help regulate before the 2015 rules replaced the 2010 rules as the 2010 rules were inadequate. The vote yesterday undid the 2015 rules and the 2010 rules were replaced by 2015 rules. So basically we were rolled back to 2010, if not earlier. A fact that many people ignore.

2015 Internet didn't look much different from 2017 but 2010 sure as shit did.

How many of you remember back to 2010? High-bandwidth services weren't common. DSL speeds were still relatively competitive with Cable so there was price competition. The amount of users on mobile devices was a mere fraction of today. Those were the days where Verizon/AT&T were able to tell Apple and Google to not allow an app on their app stores. Google Wallet banned by Verizon anyone?

Under the 2010 rules AT&T blocked FaceTime. Phone-based hotspots were blocked just about across the board because all the carriers wanted you to have their hardware hotspot and pay more. That's why apps like PDANet existed back in those days only you had to sideload PDAnet because Google couldn't have it on the Play Store. Back in those days BitTorrent was under attack by the ISPs, something we're about to see again. Even though BT has legitimate uses then and now, the ISPs hate it and we've seen where Comcast is already looking to fight it now that NN is gone.

Back in 2010 YouTube videos were only 15 minutes long. 360p was the max quality uploaded. Flash was used for delivering all those videos. CDNs were vastly different than they are now. A lot has changed in 7 years and now there is absolutely zero regulation to stop the ISPs from doing anything they fucking want.

And I'll leave this as a parting gift to show how corrupt Pai and his FCC is. They had zero business getting rid of NN with all these questions unanswered. They are just corrupt mother fuckers bowing to the ISPs who line their pockets.

 
cptnjarhead said:
Show me who was denied access to content previous to NN?... talk about misnomer. Just like the misnomer about Affordable health care...and the scary stoired of people being denied health care...notice how they never used the words "medical care" our healthcare/medical care was the best in the world before ACA it was affordable already before the gov got involved. The government is the problem...
Click to expand...
Prior to the Affordable Care Act, there wasn't a cap on how much revenue insurance companies could make off of premiums. In some markets, especially those for single individuals, revenue from insurance premiums was over 40%. The ACA implemented the 80/20 rule (and 85/15 rule for large group employer coverage) which by 2015, insurance companies revenue was capped to 20% profit and overhead expenditure from health insurance premiums. The rising rates were already in the works and were slowed down by the ACA.


Source, paraphrased: based upon the data we received from the first and second quarterly reports of 2011, 7 of the 12 issuers in the individual market and 6 of the 15 issuers in the large group market would not meet the MLR of 80 and 85 percent respectively.
With a multiplier of 2.00 (40% profit off of premiums), 3 of the 12 issuers in the individual market would not meet the MLR standard, and all issuers in the large group market would meet the MLR. (p. 76575, par. 9, Health & Human Services https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-12-07/html/2011-31289.htm)
 
Grimlaking said:
Because an unregulated automotive industry was great for America long term? Nope...

Because an unregulated Medical industry is great for America long term? Nope...

Because unregulated phone was great for America long term? Nope...

Because unregulated food services were great for America? Nope...

You know at this point I'm struggling a bit to find something unregulated that has proven to be good for America long term. Heck even self regulation helps when they actually do it. (Look at the Rating system of movies and video games.)

So what do you have... I want to hear your amazing success cases of greed not trumping what is good for the people. I hope you have a few that are not easily thrown away.
Click to expand...
Sorry but over-regulation is just as bad or worse than unregulated. You realize that a defining characteristic of a fascist government is control of private industry by heavy government regulation...

The actual reality is there will be negatives AND positives with this new ruling. If fewer people are getting things for free those who are willing to pay a little more may actual get a lot more...
 
Vermillion said:
The problem is they forget that there were rules in place from 2010 to help regulate before the 2015 rules replaced the 2010 rules as the 2010 rules were inadequate. The vote yesterday undid the 2015 rules and the 2010 rules were replaced by 2015 rules. So basically we were rolled back to 2010, if not earlier. A fact that many people ignore.

2015 Internet didn't look much different from 2017 but 2010 sure as shit did.

How many of you remember back to 2010? High-bandwidth services weren't common. DSL speeds were still relatively competitive with Cable so there was price competition. The amount of users on mobile devices was a mere fraction of today. Those were the days where Verizon/AT&T were able to tell Apple and Google to not allow an app on their app stores. Google Wallet banned by Verizon anyone?

Under the 2010 rules AT&T blocked FaceTime. Phone-based hotspots were blocked just about across the board because all the carriers wanted you to have their hardware hotspot and pay more. That's why apps like PDANet existed back in those days only you had to sideload PDAnet because Google couldn't have it on the Play Store. Back in those days BitTorrent was under attack by the ISPs, something we're about to see again. Even though BT has legitimate uses then and now, the ISPs hate it and we've seen where Comcast is already looking to fight it now that NN is gone.

Back in 2010 YouTube videos were only 15 minutes long. 360p was the max quality uploaded. Flash was used for delivering all those videos. CDNs were vastly different than they are now. A lot has changed in 7 years and now there is absolutely zero regulation to stop the ISPs from doing anything they fucking want.
Click to expand...

Thank you for taking the time to explain something which should be -- but apparently isn't -- obvious. (y)
 
thejokker said:
Sorry but over-regulation is just as bad or worse than unregulated.
Click to expand...

Sure, but that isn't the question. The question is, where do you draw the line between "too much" and "not enough"?

Personally, I think NN was nowhere close to "too much."
 
^ the problem with these counter-arguments being made is that you arent really arguing with somebody, you're arguing with a copy/pasta. Guys like him dont have any thoughts or opinions of their own. He hates liberals, and because he was told NN was a liberal agenda he's going to argue against it no matter what by seeking out any material that already has a conclusion decided for him. It's why you see this sudden surge in "welp before 2015" posts everywhere. They're all sourcing their info from breitbart or something and dont realize how played out it already is.
 
bugleyman said:
Sure, but that isn't the question. The question is, where do you draw the line between "too much" and "not enough"?

Personally, I think NN was nowhere close to "too much."
Click to expand...

I would be perfectly fine with something that prevents a provider from blocking access to things, but write the law better than the repealed NN. Having second and third order affects that are unintentional are REALLY not helpful, particularly when they are harmful.
 
nysmo said:
^ the problem with these counter-arguments being made is that you arent really arguing with somebody, you're arguing with a copy/pasta. Guys like him dont have any thoughts or opinions of their own. He hates liberals, and because he was told NN was a liberal agenda he's going to argue against it no matter what by seeking out any material that already has a conclusion decided for him. It's why you see this sudden surge in "welp before 2015" posts everywhere. They're all sourcing their info from breitbart or something and dont realize how played out it already is.
Click to expand...

Says the copy pasta from Reddit :ROFLMAO:
 
Gasaraki_ said:
Canada has shitty ISPs and wireless carriers. Canada is worst than the US.
Click to expand...

maybe shitty in own ways, but at least we are fighting ISP etc from CONTROLLING what we want to use the service we pay for, i.e net neutrality that the pricing is fixed, the speeds cannot be throttled, what I see or use is up to ME, not to some corporate giant to decide I am not allowed.

We are not in a fascist state, yet, so it should be up to the individual to use their internet how they see fit, seems like Canada is a step ahead of the US now more than ever, or did you not see the memo AHAHAHA
 
thebufenator said:
I would be perfectly fine with something that prevents a provider from blocking access to things, but write the law better than the repealed NN. Having second and third order affects that are unintentional are REALLY not helpful, particularly when they are harmful.
Click to expand...

I won't pretend to understand the Internet well enough to claim that the regulations could not have been better written -- heck, if I had to bet, I'd bet that they could have been -- I just wish they'd been improved instead of eliminated.
 
dragonstongue said:
maybe shitty in own ways, but at least we are fighting ISP etc from CONTROLLING what we want to use the service we pay for, i.e net neutrality that the pricing is fixed, the speeds cannot be throttled, what I see or use is up to ME, not to some corporate giant to decide I am not allowed.

We are not in a fascist state, yet, so it should be up to the individual to use their internet how they see fit, seems like Canada is a step ahead of the US now more than ever, or did you not see the memo AHAHAHA
Click to expand...

isnt canada famous for its traffic shaping? canada has the shittiest people of the whole planet in the web, canadians behave more like drones than human beings, you guys should be banned from the open internet, in my opinion.
 
cptnjarhead said:
oh man.. this is bad... i mean.. remember how bad the internet was bleak and barren back before 2015?.. remember?... yeah me neither.
Click to expand...

Yep, its been pretty great that the Internet has had NN since basically its inception except for a few brief periods that were a matter of months until now. That's the thing that trolls like you don't understand. Whenever you come up with this pre-2015 BS, you are literally reinforcing that NN is good because we've basically always had it in one form or another...
 
cptnjarhead said:
Having the feds regulate the internet... the largest medium of free speech ever to exist in America or human history is not bunk. If the ISP's are as you say... we will see....
Click to expand...

Newsflash, the government has always regulated the internet.

Newsflash, the government *STILL* is regulating the internet.
 
thebufenator said:
Making sure providers can't censor content is fine. This law was much more than that. It also did not apply to everyone. Companies like Google and Facebook could/can still censor what they want, and supported NN since it didn't apply to them. Funny, the idea of NN being applicable to Google et al.....it was fought.
Click to expand...

Man its like an ISP talking points convention in here. FYI, FCC has no mandate or authority wrt to google or facebook nor is it likely that the US government has any mandate or authority over the content of Google or Facebook. Its like you people don't even know how the constitution works. Or for that matter logic: "we are pissed about censorship so we'll take care of that by enabling more censorship, that'll teach them....".
 
bugleyman said:
Wow, some of these comments really demonstrate how many people have been conditioned to oppose anything the government does simply because it is the government doing it.
Click to expand...

ROFL, "conditioned". Yes, it is called living life and seeing how so much of what government does, doesn't help you but fucks you. No matter what cutesy spin they put on it. The main reason you often have only 1-2 ISP's/cable providers is your municipal governments granting those companies monopolies to get them to lay the cable/data lines. Hell, you had the Telco's years ago demanding that the cable companies share access to their lines because it wasn't "fair" otherwise. Yet those telephone companies had had tax payer subsidized lines for almost 100 years.


aaronspink said:
Man its like an ISP talking points convention in here. FYI, FCC has no mandate or authority wrt to google or facebook nor is it likely that the US government has any mandate or authority over the content of Google or Facebook. Its like you people don't even know how the constitution works. Or for that matter logic: "we are pissed about censorship so we'll take care of that by enabling more censorship, that'll teach them....".
Click to expand...

What does the Constitution even mean anymore? The healthcare mandate among other court rulings have shown that the elite/establishment/lawyer thinking is that the interstate commerce clause controls everything. Look at Wickard v Filburn from the 40s.

Also,
VanGoghComplex said:
That's because COMPANIES LIKE GOOGLE AND FACEBOOK ARE NOT ISPS!
Click to expand...

Ahem, Google fiber is an ISP. One that doesn't like it when municipal governments try to create their own isp's to get broadband to their communities. And if Google can discriminate what is in its search engines, why does a baker have to bake a gay wedding cake? FTC, FCC, CDC, or whatever 3 letter agency you want, does it matter? Its all under the commerce clause dude.

I'll take the 15 years of no official NN internet than letting the camel's nose under the tent by giving the feds any serious control over internet regulations.
 
VanGoghComplex said:
You keep saying "regulate the internet," but that's a misnomer out of your mouth and an intentionally misleading spin out of the mouth of whatever right-wing pimple you're parroting.

The CONTENT of the internet is where the "free speech" and "free market" exist. NN aimed to prevent ISPs from manipulating people's ACCESS TO CONTENT in ways that advance their business or political interests.

Tomorrow, if your local broadband ISP decides they want to block all the conservative news sites on the net for their users because they want to ingratiate themselves to some commie in our government, they can do that now with impunity. NN would have prevented it. Where's your free speech now?

If your broadband carrier offers video streaming services and decides that Netflix, Hulu, and YouTube all hurt their bottom line, they can halt those services on their network and there will be no legal recourse for you or the content providers. There's your idea of the "free market" in action: what will you do? Switch to a much crappier secondary ISP with prices and services so different they may as well not be in the same market?
Click to expand...
You forget that they could have always done this. The reason they don't is because that is just bad business
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top