FCC Plans December Vote to Kill Net Neutrality Rules

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
The Federal Communications Commission next month is planning a vote to kill rules demanding fair treatment of web traffic and may decide to vacate the regulations altogether. Chairman Ajit Pai in April proposed gutting the rules and asked for public reaction. The agency has taken in more than 22 million comments on the matter.

One of the people said Pai may call for vacating the rules except for portions that mandate internet service providers inform customers about their practices -- one of the more severe options that would please broadband providers. They argue the FCC’s rules aren’t needed and discourage investment, in part because they subject companies to complex and unpredictable regulations.
 
I'm wondering how long till this guy becomes next CEO of EA.

More on topic, there was a time I felt we could trust the FCC to have out best interests in their agenda. Not even close now.
Megalith said:
They argue the FCC’s rules aren’t needed and discourage investment, in part because they subject companies to complex and unpredictable regulations.
Click to expand...

I agree how that can be a major deterrent to investment but overall it's a total smokescreen for the real exploitation of the American people that these ISP's are pushing.

Isn't this the same guy whose proposing to abandon copper infrastructure replacement?

Also the same person proposing allowing Telcom's to define 3G as acceptable broadband service in lieu of physical infrastructures for many rural communities?
 
And after they do, I want to see all the whiny girls here and all over the nets that have a religious like devotion to the sky is falling regarding NN notice absolutely nothing change.

*Raises shields, prepares for impact.
 
dj_spanmaster said:
Residents in Spain and Portugal might disagree with you. They already have site packaging.
Click to expand...

Nope. Already covered a great deal in the post here about that. First, it's mobile data, second, the packages are an option, third their data packages are HALF the price of data here in the US, fourth if you get the data option for specific services it's 1/4 the cost of their normal data packages, so what you are saying is more and cheaper options is a bad thing? Ok....
 
Pai can't wait to fuck over the people, the second he does he is guaranteed a board of directors seat for life with any ISP of his choice when he is finally removed or quits. Hell I am sure Verizon would be happy to equip him an office with a button that serves hookers and/or blow.
 
So, looks like we'll have either a re-in-statement on the next party change, or even better, from Wired-

A 1946 law called the Administrative Procedure Act bans federal agencies making "capricious" decisions. The law is meant, in part, to keep regulations from yo-yoing back and forth every time a new party gained control of the White House. The FCC successfully argued in favor of Title II reclassification in federal court just last summer. That effort means Pai might have to make the case that things had changed enough since then to justify a complete reversal in policy.
Click to expand...

I kind of hope it goes the Procedure Act route because if that challenge is won then NN will become, I would think, permanent no matter which party is in power.
 
I agree with Wyodiver. It is obvious that paying more for medical care, internet access, and giving tax cuts to the top 1% is the best way to go, even at the expense of everyone else on this forum..It is obvious.

I am also a firm believer in our constitution and all of the amendments, especially the 1st and 2nd, although the rest are great too. I am waiting for someone to use the 2nd amendment to support the first one in situations like these. This may be a prime example of a situation where it could be applied. I am looking forward to the case study.
 
Pai has the kind of smile that a douchebag trying to shake your hand after he just fucked your wife has. Or more accurately, its shaking your hand as you go to work and thinking of the screwing to come.
 
I remember when that Muslim guy from Kenya put an anti-net neutrality lobbyist in charge of the FCC. The lobby is strong.

I feel for Americans, they deserve so much better.
 
Last edited:
I still find it hard to believe that someone on [H] would be in favor of abolishing net neutrality. Then again, a lot of people here might either be trolls, or government workers who only care about themselves meanwhile swallowing a bloated sense of self-importance, so who knows. It's a pretty straightforward issue; do you like corporate greed? y/n. Sad if you say yes.
 
Mystique said:
I still find it hard to believe that someone on [H] would be in favor of abolishing net neutrality. Then again, a lot of people here might either be trolls, or government workers who only care about themselves meanwhile swallowing a bloated sense of self-importance, so who knows. It's a pretty straightforward issue; do you like corporate greed? y/n. Sad if you say yes.
Click to expand...
Just contrarians and rugged individuals who don't need no government.. until they do.
I will never understand the total anti-government stance, in particular when those same folks favor corporations which these days very, very heavily influence government and are driven by profit alone, nothing else.
 
Mystique said:
I still find it hard to believe that someone on [H] would be in favor of abolishing net neutrality. Then again, a lot of people here might either be trolls, or government workers who only care about themselves meanwhile swallowing a bloated sense of self-importance, so who knows. It's a pretty straightforward issue; do you like corporate greed? y/n. Sad if you say yes.
Click to expand...

Actually its about choice and better prices. Those who do not favor more regulation understand markets and how it works, along with knowing history of what happened with Ma Bell. The only monopoly that has happened has been due to government regulation, not lack of it. People, like yourself act as if NN is turn over it's all going to go to hell all of a sudden, even though we have been without NN and all their claims never happened to start with. We can however see what government regulation does with allowing ISP monopoly in the regulation of ROWs, you know back when the government said it NEEDED to control them because if it didn't some ISP was going to come in and buy up all the land and not allow others to install lines into it? The exact same land that the government now refuses to let other ISPs install lines into? Research this issue with Google wanting to bring super cheap fiber into areas. An ISP goes into an area and makes a agreement with the local government, which allows them and maybe one other ISP access to install cable, making it a government enforced monopoly or duopoly. To get into these areas takes huge sums of money and a large legal team, something Google has, so it was able to force it's way into many areas. They were sued however by a number of others trying to stop them, Google bought up a smaller wireless gigabit company to service last mile without installing cable to get around these government controlled ROWs, at which point Google was then sued and the other ISPs went to the government to get this type of service regulated as still using the ROW, to block them from supplying service to people. This is how government regulation is used in the real world, it is called regulator capture.

One of the cities Google forced it way into, Comcast was claiming it was to expensive to upgrade the current system and that current lines were maxed already and nothing could be done. Google goes online with its fiber service and within the week, Comcast dropped prices AND upped speeds to current and new subscribers. You want better service and prices with more options? Tell the government to stop this ROW regulation, rather than just trying to use what you see as a "moral" high ground without understanding the situation and how we got here.
 
BlueFireIce said:
First, it's mobile data
Click to expand...

I'm pretty comprehending of infrastructure differences between mobile and landline internet. I'm also pretty comprehending of adaptation of new business models. There aren't thousands of providers for competition to keep prices down (in both mobile or landline), it's a tiny number; which means Pai is proposing setting the market up as an unregulated oligopoly. That's a problem.

BlueFireIce said:
second, the packages are an option,
Click to expand...

Counting on oligopolies to provide options is fallacious. In theory, the government could offer a basic public option to guarantee keeping prices down, similar to what was proposed for health insurance.

BlueFireIce said:
third their data packages are HALF the price of data here in the US,
Click to expand...

That is a great point, actually. Per capita they have far less disposable money than we we do, and their providers have set up these affordable options for them. But remember, that likely means it would work differently here. It is anticipated that such a model in a wealthy environment would end up being more expensive for consumers.

BlueFireIce said:
fourth if you get the data option for specific services it's 1/4 the cost of their normal data packages, so what you are saying is more and cheaper options is a bad thing?
Click to expand...

More and cheaper options are not a bad thing, this is just a situation that I don't see benefiting consumers in the end. Kind of like if your electric company was selling cheap combination oven/refrigerators, and they are the only ovens and refrigerators that work with their electricity. (This is admittedly an outlandish analogy.) In that situation you'd be counting on the company's best interests, but it's pretty clear that they've got a lot of control and those products are geared to use plenty of electricity.
 
Twisted Kidney said:
I remember when that Muslim guy from Kenya put an anti-net neutrality lobbyist in charge of the FCC. The lobby is strong.

I feel for Americans, they deserve so much better.
Click to expand...


And to everyones surprise, Wheeler turned out to not be a corporate shill and actually did work to help consumers. I'll admit I was wrong about him. But Pai is even more of a corporate isp C** dumpster than even I expected..... He needs that stupid large mug to wash out all the slime left in his mouth from his meetings with the ISP execs...
 
I'm ok with this, it mostly affects rural areas and central states, I think don't they need any of the high tech jobs the bigger states control, they should stick to their freight services expertise while automation is being worked on. /s
 
dj_spanmaster said:
I'm pretty comprehending of infrastructure differences between mobile and landline internet. I'm also pretty comprehending of adaptation of new business models. There aren't thousands of providers for competition to keep prices down (in both mobile or landline), it's a tiny number; which means Pai is proposing setting the market up as an unregulated oligopoly. That's a problem.
Click to expand...

Yet you don't understand the REASON for this, which is ROW control, other ISPs who wish to install cable are not allowed to, so you end up with one ISP and a number of resellers. To force your way into a market costs so much that even Google has a hard time with it. Understand current issues and regulation before suggesting even more.


dj_spanmaster said:
Counting on oligopolies to provide options is fallacious. In theory, the government could offer a basic public option to guarantee keeping prices down, similar to what was proposed for health insurance.
Click to expand...

We have seen how well that health insurance has gone haven't we? Ask Canada and the EU how that's going. The monopoly in ISP for given areas ONLY exists due to government regulation, just as we had with Ma Bell. You are suggesting a problem caused by government control and not having a free market, will be solved with even more government control.



dj_spanmaster said:
That is a great point, actually. Per capita they have far less disposable money than we we do, and their providers have set up these affordable options for them. But remember, that likely means it would work differently here. It is anticipated that such a model in a wealthy environment would end up being more expensive for consumers.
Click to expand...

Why? Because you say so?

Soooo...This is an example of the evil of not having regulation, but once it's pointed out that is not the case and they have cheaper data and these are only options and are even cheaper, then the goal post moves to, "ok, but that would not happen here because it doesn't fit my agenda".



dj_spanmaster said:
More and cheaper options are not a bad thing, this is just a situation that I don't see benefiting consumers in the end. Kind of like if your electric company was selling cheap combination oven/refrigerators, and they are the only ovens and refrigerators that work with their electricity. (This is admittedly an outlandish analogy.) In that situation you'd be counting on the company's best interests, but it's pretty clear that they've got a lot of control and those products are geared to use plenty of electricity.
Click to expand...


Except your analogy has no relation to what is going on and their options are not tied to anything and the options can be turned on and off at will on your current plan, so the only change is cheaper data and more options. It is amazing how far people will go and try and stretch things to make something good seem bad because it no longer fits their agenda.
 
BlueFireIce said:
Actually its about choice and better prices. Those who do not favor more regulation understand markets and how it works, along with knowing history of what happened with Ma Bell. The only monopoly that has happened has been due to government regulation, not lack of it. People, like yourself act as if NN is turn over it's all going to go to hell all of a sudden, even though we have been without NN and all their claims never happened to start with. We can however see what government regulation does with allowing ISP monopoly in the regulation of ROWs, you know back when the government said it NEEDED to control them because if it didn't some ISP was going to come in and buy up all the land and not allow others to install lines into it? The exact same land that the government now refuses to let other ISPs install lines into? Research this issue with Google wanting to bring super cheap fiber into areas. An ISP goes into an area and makes a agreement with the local government, which allows them and maybe one other ISP access to install cable, making it a government enforced monopoly or duopoly. To get into these areas takes huge sums of money and a large legal team, something Google has, so it was able to force it's way into many areas. They were sued however by a number of others trying to stop them, Google bought up a smaller wireless gigabit company to service last mile without installing cable to get around these government controlled ROWs, at which point Google was then sued and the other ISPs went to the government to get this type of service regulated as still using the ROW, to block them from supplying service to people. This is how government regulation is used in the real world, it is called regulator capture.

One of the cities Google forced it way into, Comcast was claiming it was to expensive to upgrade the current system and that current lines were maxed already and nothing could be done. Google goes online with its fiber service and within the week, Comcast dropped prices AND upped speeds to current and new subscribers. You want better service and prices with more options? Tell the government to stop this ROW regulation, rather than just trying to use what you see as a "moral" high ground without understanding the situation and how we got here.
Click to expand...

Agreed, while the Telecommunications Act of 1996 did a lot of good, it was outdated pretty quickly (in fact, the telecom lobby had much to do with that, thanks to the 90's Republican Congress and President Clinton). Among many things it did wrong (media consolidation, barf), those ISP contracts that lead to regional monopolies/duopolies. That is the very antithesis of free market business. Once Comcast had competition, their service was much more affordable.

But it's unclear how you intended this to apply to Net Neutrality. Treating all network traffic as equal is not the same as only allowing one competitor in a market.
 
Wierdo said:
I'm ok with this, it mostly affects rural areas and central states, I think don't they need any of the high tech jobs the bigger states control. /s
Click to expand...


Wut....? This effects everyone, especially those in big cities. I'm in LA and have the luxury of choosing between whoever the fuck TWC is now or 1-2Mb/s DSL.... So when the restrictions are lifted and they start throttling my traffic/blocking VPN/imposing harsh data caps I can't do anything about it.
 
I'm in Troy NY about 5 minutes north of Albany. TWC just switched over to Spectrum. No fiber in this area and I live in a highrise right in the middle of the City and we've been waiting on fiber for years. Found out that fiber is not gonna be installed in my area, so I'm fucked in the rectum by "Spectrum" as it's my only net provider :mad:
 
Biznatch said:
Wut....? This effects everyone, especially those in big cities. I'm in LA and have the luxury of choosing between whoever the fuck TWC is now or 1-2Mb/s DSL.... So when the restrictions are lifted and they start throttling my traffic/blocking VPN/imposing harsh data caps I can't do anything about it.
Click to expand...

Just /s but yes it affects everyone of course. Still, it noticeably affects some groups more than others, in the case of LA the population density means the companies involved will find it in their interest to give the area much more of their attention compared to, say, West Virginia.

So yes, in a sense it helps keep certain places ahead in the game and maintain the usual economic prosperity gap, but at least in this case it's self inflicted so hey, enjoy the advantage even as we all sink together.
 
Last edited:
BlueFireIce said:
Yet you don't understand the REASON for this, which is ROW control, other ISPs who wish to install cable are not allowed to, so you end up with one ISP and a number of resellers. To force your way into a market costs so much that even Google has a hard time with it. Understand current issues and regulation before suggesting even more.
Click to expand...

I understand the reasons just fine. My time at the Public Service Commission and utilities were pretty informative. We are both saying how monopolies and oligopolies are problems. But you don't make those things go away by removing all rules and regulations.

BlueFireIce said:
We have seen how well that health insurance has gone haven't we? Ask Canada and the EU how that's going. The monopoly in ISP for given areas ONLY exists due to government regulation, just as we had with Ma Bell. You are suggesting a problem caused by government control and not having a free market, will be solved with even more government control.
Click to expand...

They say it's fine actually, and I know so because I've lived in Canada and the EU. I don't buy those conservative talking points.

BlueFireIce said:
Why? Because you say so?
Click to expand...

Well, no, it's because we have different market forces at work, due to having more disposable income.

BlueFireIce said:
Except your analogy has no relation to what is going on and their options are not tied to anything and the options can be turned on and off at will on your current plan, so the only change is cheaper data and more options. It is amazing how far people will go and try and stretch things to make something good seem bad because it no longer fits their agenda.
Click to expand...

To be fair, I did say it was an outlandish analogy, designed to illustrate the natural monopoly that exists in our landline internet markets. Granted, I cannot stop you from rejecting that analogy on the basis of it being my agenda. I am the debbil after all.
 
Biznatch said:
And to everyones surprise, Wheeler turned out to not be a corporate shill and actually did work to help consumers. I'll admit I was wrong about him. But Pai is even more of a corporate isp C** dumpster than even I expected..... He needs that stupid large mug to wash out all the slime left in his mouth from his meetings with the ISP execs...
Click to expand...

I'm really referring to the creepy close relationships between these lobbyists and elected officials and their teams.
 
travisty said:
Everyone should petition their local governments for city run fiber. F all the telecoms.
Example: Longmont Colorado's Nextlight Fiber Internet. $50 / month for 1 gig up/down.
https://www.longmontcolorado.gov/de...ngmont-power-communications/broadband-service

It's a hard fought battle that's totally worth it in the end!
Click to expand...

City run fiber is a huge proposition, though. I would even be happy with a system where the municipality owns "the last mile" of cabling to peoples' homes (all utilities - electric, telephone, internet, gas, etc). That would cost less, and still enable plenty of low cost competition (as long as we get rid of regional monopolies, as BlueFireIce indicated).
 
dj_spanmaster said:
I understand the reasons just fine. My time at the Public Service Commission and utilities were pretty informative. We are both saying how monopolies and oligopolies are problems. But you don't make those things go away by removing all rules and regulations.



They say it's fine actually, and I know so because I've lived in Canada and the EU. I don't buy those conservative talking points.



Well, no, it's because we have different market forces at work, due to having more disposable income.



To be fair, I did say it was an outlandish analogy, designed to illustrate the natural monopoly that exists in our landline internet markets. Granted, I cannot stop you from rejecting that analogy on the basis of it being my agenda. I am the debbil after all.
Click to expand...

The greatest enemy to free markets is not government regulation. Markets NEVER regulate themselves nor do they do what is best for consumers even with significant competition. It never happens and it never will. And do yourself a favor, skip the Friedman talk until we have an FCC commissioner and a president who are actually free market advocates. Kinda hilarious actually.
 
I wish Silicon Valley would get a bit more heavy handed when stuff like this happens. I bet the FCC would sing a different tune if all their members, including family members and friends, suddenly had their social media accounts and software licenses suspended. Sorry, we are unfortunately able to allow the continued use of any of Google, Apple, Facebook, Linked In, Microsoft, Instagram, Snapchat etc etc etc due to a potential security issue. Sorry for the inconvenience. We are working on the issue and will contact you when we have found a solution.
 
tetris42 said:
Out of curiosity, when's the last time that happened? It's mostly been a one-way street from my perspective for the last couple decades...
Click to expand...
Our system is designed that laws can be added, changed, or removed as they see fit. I'm not going to research it for you, it's basic civil knowledge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top