The FCC Has Unveiled Its Plan to Repeal Its Net Neutrality Rules

c_porter said:
The FCC will use their Title II power over the internet to turn US telecom into 1984-style state pripagando that bans all political dissent and brainwashes everyone into accepting a hellish existence.

Sure, it's a hypothetical, but does that sound good to you?
Click to expand...

I don't exactly want it to go too far the other way either. What I do want is something at least somewhat balanced. Which, give or take a bit, is what we have right now. What I'm saying I guess is don't fuck with it too much. I don't think that's all that unreasonable. There's no way they're actually going to make things better for the customer, so I guess I'd just be happy if they didn't make it worse.
 
homernoy said:
Hey, another reason to love the Republicans. The never fuck over citizens to appease corporate interests, so as an individual I feel safe and secure. Thank goodness for that........
Click to expand...
The framing of your statement implies Democrats don't ALSO appease corporate interests to fuck over people. I mean this is the party that deregulated wall street, expanded the number of active wars we're in, continued the bail outs, etc. If anything, I see the Republicans as LESS dangerous because they don't even hide what they are. It's there in plain sight.
 
Jovian said:
Is there any VPN company that is public that I can buy stock in?
Click to expand...

VPNs could become problematic too. All they have to do is throttle any traffic that's not part of what they consider a premium content, stream, service, channel, etc.

There's not really a great way around that either. Even if a smaller ISP came up to try and compete (against all odds) the traffic eventually hits one of the big networks, and then it's back to throttle-town again. Maybe some new over-the-air technology and a new open network. However, the FCC controls all that space, and will likely hand it all over to one of their favored corporations.

Guess it's back to physical media, private point to point networks, underground services, routing traffic all over hell and back. Just like some 80s hacker story, or the end of Wayne's World. :p

Maybe there could be some method of encapsulating traffic, so that the ISP thinks it's part of a service you pay extra for. :D
 
tetris42 said:
The framing of your statement implies Democrats don't ALSO appease corporate interests to fuck over people. I mean this is the party that deregulated wall street, expanded the number of active wars we're in, continued the bail outs, etc. If anything, I see the Republicans as LESS dangerous because they don't even hide what they are. It's there in plain sight.
Click to expand...

All political parties fuck over the common man. It is their job to do so while smiling at the camera. ;)
 
cageymaru said:
All political parties fuck over the common man. It is their job to do so while smiling at the camera. ;)
Click to expand...

This is what makes me laugh. One may prefer the overall stated mission of one party or the other, but underneath it all, they all do the same exact things, just in slightly differing directions. Anyone that swears by one party or the other is pretty blind.
 
cageymaru said:
Already done. This is exactly how parts of Europe work already. If you want Facebook or EBAY then it is $5 more per month. The end game will be to block all VPN services and map what you can see to protect you.
https://qz.com/1114690/why-is-net-neutrality-important-look-to-portugal-and-spain-to-understand/
Click to expand...

Yo, I'm gonna let you finish your fear mongering, but I just wanted to say that after reading up on the whole Catalonia thing going on over there right now and the history of Spain, I'd have to say that anything that happens in Spain should not be expected in America. They are barely a nation....in our understanding of the word at least.
 
westrock2000 said:
Yo, I'm gonna let you finish your fear mongering, but I just wanted to say that after reading up on the whole Catalonia thing going on over there right now and the history of Spain, I'd have to say that anything that happens in Spain should not be expected in America. They are barely a nation....in our understanding of the word at least.
Click to expand...

I'm not fearmongering. It is what it is. Another user said that they get 5GB of traffic per month and then they have to choose which services they want to use for an additional $5 fee. I can see that getting traction through Congress. Who needs to use more than 5GB of data a month anyways?

Don't the ISPs already have data caps? Implementing this system would be easy and would show off capitalism at its finest!
 
The FCC's proposal also would shift some enforcement responsibility to the Federal Trade Commission, which can sue companies for violating the commitments or statements they have made to the public.

“The FTC stands ready to protect broadband subscribers from anticompetitive, unfair, or deceptive acts and practices just as we protect consumers in the rest of the Internet ecosystem,” Maureen Ohlhausen, the acting chairman of the FTC, said Tuesday in a statement after the announcement by her counterpart at the FCC.
Click to expand...


This is what you should do. Watch the FTC and see what they say they are going to do.

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events

And watch the FTC and see what they are actually doing.

https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings

For instance;

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/pre...ng-ftc-chairman-maureen-k-ohlhausen-restoring

The FTC stands ready to protect broadband subscribers from anticompetitive, unfair, or deceptive acts and practices just as we protect consumers in the rest of the Internet ecosystem.”
Click to expand...

An online lingerie marketer has agreed to return more than $1.3 million to customers to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it deceived shoppers who enrolled in a negative-option membership program offering discounts and other benefits, and made it hard for them to cancel their memberships.
Click to expand...

The Federal Trade Commission, along with federal, state and international law enforcement partners, today announced “Operation Tech Trap,” a nationwide and international crackdown on tech support scams that trick consumers into believing their computers are infected with viruses and malware, and then charge them hundreds of dollars for unnecessary repairs.
Click to expand...

There is more, but we will be looking for Privacy and Internet Service related actions.
 
cageymaru said:
I'm not fearmongering. It is what it is. Another user said that they get 5GB of traffic per month and then they have to choose which services they want to use for an additional $5 fee. I can see that getting traction through Congress. Who needs to use more than 5GB of data a month anyways?

Don't the ISPs already have data caps? Implementing this system would be easy and would show off capitalism at its finest!
Click to expand...

LORDY 5 GB? That sounds like one of those Bandwidth Abusers. Some customers have a lot of gall to use their supplied service!
 
TripleSeven said:
Over here (Portugal) it's not quite like that.
Our mobile data plans have a set amount of internet traffic allotted to them, say 5GB for example. That data plan allows you to visit every site you want, up to a limit of 5GB.
What they are selling now, are add on data plans for specific set of sites, with a data cap for them only.

So, for example, we have our base data plan for 20 euros, that includes comms and 5gb of internet traffic, and then we can add a data plan for 10gb to use on video sites for another 6 euros.
So we end up with a monthly bill of 26 euros, with a cap of 15gb (5 for all around use, plus 10 for videos, like youtube and netflix),
You could use up to the 15gb cap on video sites only if you wish to.
The base 5gb are not restricted in any way.
Click to expand...

westrock2000 This is how it is done. I can see this easily adapted for America.
 
cageymaru said:
I'm not fearmongering. It is what it is. Another user said that they get 5GB of traffic per month and then they have to choose which services they want to use for an additional $5 fee. I can see that getting traction through Congress. Who needs to use more than 5GB of data a month anyways?

Don't the ISPs already have data caps? Implementing this system would be easy and would show off capitalism at its finest!
Click to expand...

My phone provider does this already (4GB). Although T-Mobile does break the rules of Net Neutrality and not count services like YouTube and Netflix. Which of course would be illegal under Net Neutrality.

I personally, think I would be satisfied if AT&T stuck to my datacap (1TB) and didn't count Netflix or YouTube.
 
if this starts the problem is that it will effect everyone no matter what. The reason is that everyone has to get bandwidth from somewhere. So if a few of the big guys start they will charge people that connect to them the same. So then as a result those companies has to get the money back to pay those fees. Then anyone that connects to them will have to pay.

the flip side is that the smaller guys (including city ran networks) could even get fucked more because now the larger guys could say that 1Mbps cost $1 billion and there would be nothing to do about it.
 
TaintedSquirrel said:
I can't believe people think this will actually happen.
What about when Joe Schmo wakes up one day and tries to go watch Netflix and sees a big error that says "If you want to access this website, pay an extra $10/month"? Now imagine that happening TO THE ENTIRE COUNTRY. Imagine it with something like Facebook or Twitter (I've seen people joke about the ISP selling a "Social Media Package").

Site-specific fast lanes will never, ever happen. You can't take away something people had for free for the last 30 years and then try to charge it back to them at extra cost. For-fucking-get about it.

Pissing off every single American is not a great business strategy and not even the big telecoms are that suicidal.
Click to expand...

Do you live in America? Are you familiar with our government? People can scream all they want when shit like this happens, you know what happens next? It fades away and becomes the normal way of things. We'll tell our grandchildren how great the Internet used to be back before 1984.
 
J3RK said:
You're not incorrect there. Not much has changed. Not much PROBABLY will change now either. However, it does make it just THAT much more possible. Look at games and all the big companies like 2K, Ubi, EA (yes, the shitty companies :p ) and their microtransaction-only policies JUST NOW coming into existence. Things are evolving. EVERYTHING is moving more and more toward a nickel and dime the fuck out of everyone for everything model that ANYTHING that could be even a mild deterrent will become more and more welcome to consumers I think. It's the potential for abuse that looks so ugly.

Just wait until Microsoft drops their traditional Office packages for 365 only. Now your ISP is going to sell you an Office 365 Accelerator package that gives you more than 256Kb bandwidth to access your office files. :p

Oh, Comcast detects your constant connections to AWS that you store a lot of data or some VMs in. Now there's an extra AWS surcharge on your bill.

All hypothetical, but does any of it sound good to you?
Click to expand...
Having a meteor drop on your head is hypothetical and it doesn't sound good. What matters is how much of a possibility that scenario has to become a reality.
Comparing tv channels to internet isn't a valid comparison. The internet was always a single channel with having the user decide how to use it. Throttling a big service like netflix is fairly new because it competes with services being offered by isps (pay per view and tv service). Other than that, what examples do you have of an ala carte internet service ever being offered?
On the other hand, cable tv has always been by the channel because the channels are bundled together for the service agreements that the cable tv provider has to negotiate with. The bundles are created to make it easier for customers to choose as well as maximize profit by offering channels that people may want with a bunch of other channels they don't, thus raising the price point.

I keep on saying this over and over, but what's really missing from the ISP market is competition. I've seen posts here which call it unbridled capitalism and i can only shake my head at that. There would be massive competition between ISPs around the country if it truly was unbridled capitalism. If the choice between an ISP that doesn't throttle to one that does is given to the consumer, the one who doesn't throttle will always get the customer.

What this is an example of is cronyism. This is local and state and federal governments in some cases turning a blind eye to collusion and in some cases granting exclusive contracts to limit competition. If you want the ISPs to become competitive, you need to add competition. Break the exclusive contracts and null and void them. In places where collusion happens and ISPs do not compete, create municipality ISPs to foster competition. Invite others like google to lay down fiber and sell the fiber in the community as a right of way utility and let the ISPs fight over the customers.

There's a lot of other solutions for the problems that net neutrality tries to solve that doesn't include additional governmental oversight and costs. Even examining if ISPs should be allowed to be content creators at the same time is something that should be done. It puts them in a conflict of interest. Every single ISP that owns tv channels, newspapers, etc should be examined to see if they need to be broken up into their respective business components because the combination together puts them at conflict with their other business groups.
 
tetris42 said:
The framing of your statement implies Democrats don't ALSO appease corporate interests to fuck over people. I mean this is the party that deregulated wall street, expanded the number of active wars we're in, continued the bail outs, etc. If anything, I see the Republicans as LESS dangerous because they don't even hide what they are. It's there in plain sight.
Click to expand...
I am at this point also, it's not about one party or the other, we need to remove the party system altogether. I do agree with what you said, but both options suck. It's as if you have two choices. One choice is having someone who says they're your best friend, patting you on your shoulder and telling you about how great things are gonna be and how awesome you are, while your dog gets loaded into a truck to be turned into glue. The other choice is watching an angry old guy chase and beat your dog with a club while he corrals it into a truck to be turned into glue, telling you that this is for your own best interest. Why do we have to choose between those outcomes? Why can't we chose a third option where you get to keep your dog?
 
The crap they're selling would work only if we had the same amount of provider choice we had when the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was past. You want some restricted/value added experience, go get AOL or Compuserve. Just want some unrestricted internet access, go with Local Town Lightning, one of your local small business internet providers.

When you have one choice, the competition is not there. If we opt for no or less regulation, then you have to hit providers with some anti-trust sticks to separate out internet and content providing duties - and then lift all the weird oligopoly setups in municipalities to the point that a small business could have a shot at growing a business by providing tubes in town. Short of that, you're just opening it up for abuse in the pursuit of more money.
 
I love all the doom and gloomers in this thread. I really hope some company like Comcast tries to tier off Google for instance. If I were in charge of Google I'd block all of Comcast's IP ranges and watch Comcast's customers tear them apart. This isn't a battle that the end user gets to fight. This is something the Netflix, Googles and so on are going to fight. The internet isn't a bundle of TV channels, stop trying to compare the two.
 
Spaceninja said:
I love all the doom and gloomers in this thread. I really hope some company like Comcast tries to tier off Google for instance. If I were in charge of Google I'd block all of Comcast's IP ranges and watch Comcast's customers tear them apart. This isn't a battle that the end user gets to fight. This is something the Netflix, Googles and so on are going to fight. The internet isn't a bundle of TV channels, stop trying to compare the two.
Click to expand...

The main issue isn't Google being blocked, it's the smaller sites that don't have the benefit of Google's power and influence that could lose most.
 
Spaceninja said:
I love all the doom and gloomers in this thread. I really hope some company like Comcast tries to tier off Google for instance. If I were in charge of Google I'd block all of Comcast's IP ranges and watch Comcast's customers tear them apart. This isn't a battle that the end user gets to fight. This is something the Netflix, Googles and so on are going to fight. The internet isn't a bundle of TV channels, stop trying to compare the two.
Click to expand...

Millions of people have one option fir broadband. What does Comcast care if they bitch?
 
tetris42 said:
The framing of your statement implies Democrats don't ALSO appease corporate interests to fuck over people. I mean this is the party that deregulated wall street, expanded the number of active wars we're in, continued the bail outs, etc. If anything, I see the Republicans as LESS dangerous because they don't even hide what they are. It's there in plain sight.
Click to expand...

whatever it takes to justify what you're now realizing was the dumbest fucking thing youve ever done by voting these idiots into office.
 
TAP said:
whatever it takes to justify what you're now realizing was the dumbest fucking thing youve ever done by voting these idiots into office.
Click to expand...
Who said I voted them in? I just get sick of people talking like they don't understand how massively corrupt EACH side is and how everything would be flowers and sunshine if the other side got elected. They're both heading the same place, just different speeds. It's like nobody understands how compromised the entire system is for people like this to get into office in the first place. Again, I would take almost anything that's happening now over deregulation of Wall Street and causing the 2008 crash. That's set things into motion we haven't even BEGUN to feel the pain of yet, and it happened on the Democrats watch, yet that never gets brought up.

But hey, whatever, enjoy your binary thinking of thinking being against one side automatically makes the other side good.
 
Yes, both parties are corrupt, because both parties are products of a corrupt system. But concluding that they are the therefore practically indistinguishable is false equivalence.
 
SighTurtle said:
The main issue isn't Google being blocked, it's the smaller sites that don't have the benefit of Google's power and influence that could lose most.
Click to expand...

What's worse is that Google can't be uncompetitive in it's own market, but through the help of Comcast, they could grease the wheels by giving them money to include Google for free. Thus no one else can compete because they can't throw millions at your ISP to hide the costs of using their service. Google has the deep pockets to keep Comcast happy, and thus Comcast will keep Google happy by keeping the competition out and keeping their money train going.


For the record this is exactly why in the case of Netflix being "free" on an ISP is a bad thing. Anyone else who wants to be a video startup is already at a disadvantage because their users are going to be hit with usage charges which could easily outweigh what the service costs. You're basically already seeing that with even the bigger players. You want Sling, CBS, HBO, Hulu? All of those are going to cost you additional $$$ from your ISP if you use a certain amount of bandwidth. But if Netflix is excluded from the cap, then it doesn't matter what you use for bandwidth, you aren't going to have to pay additional money for that service.
 
tetris42 said:
The framing of your statement implies Democrats don't ALSO appease corporate interests to fuck over people. I mean this is the party that deregulated wall street, expanded the number of active wars we're in, continued the bail outs, etc. If anything, I see the Republicans as LESS dangerous because they don't even hide what they are. It's there in plain sight.
Click to expand...

I don't belong to any party. I try to call them as I see them. Now you tell me, have you ever seen a more inept, out of control White House in the history of this country? Stupid people elected a tyrant for President. He Tweets 10000 times more than my 14 year old daughter. WTF? So this is OK with you?
 
TaintedSquirrel said:
The loss of title 2 is not the death of net neutrality and I'm also 99% sure it doesn't open the door for fast lanes, either.
If you're worried about this being a springboard for future regulation rollbacks that's a separate issue entirely.

Admittedly, I'm not as up-to-date on my NN regulations as I could be. -_-
Click to expand...

Then maybe you should read up on the actual history. We got to Title II because the FCC tried to impose some rather minor NN regulations and got sued by Verizon. US Court basically said the only way you can enact regulations is via Title II. Title II is required for any and all NN regulations. As Title I, FCC basically has zero authority nor does any other government entity. At best the FTC can step in if the ISP blatantly outright lie, which they are smart enough not to do.
 
cageymaru said:
How the FCC Can Save the Open Internet.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-the-fcc-can-save-the-open-internet-1511281099



Click to expand...

That's some pure unadulterated BS right there. The Internet opened and grew under Title II regulations for the majority of its life. The vast majority of internet growth in the US happened via DSL which was covered under Title II. In fact, not just basic Title II, but also the requirements of line sharing allowing ISPs to be CLECs and compete with the larger ILECs.

The first tranche towards monopoly was removing of the line sharing requirements which killed the vast majority of competing ISPs. This was suppose to allow the ILECs to invest in new advanced infrastructure which predictably they never did.
 
Last edited:
Jovian said:
Is there any VPN company that is public that I can buy stock in?
Click to expand...

Using a VPN? Well obviously, you are using your connection for business therefore we've conveniently switched you over to the business plan at 3 times the price.
 
Lube or no Lube? It seems either feels good for pie. W/O will work just fine.
 
tetris42 said:
Who said I voted them in? I just get sick of people talking like they don't understand how massively corrupt EACH side is and how everything would be flowers and sunshine if the other side got elected. They're both heading the same place, just different speeds. It's like nobody understands how compromised the entire system is for people like this to get into office in the first place. Again, I would take almost anything that's happening now over deregulation of Wall Street and causing the 2008 crash. That's set things into motion we haven't even BEGUN to feel the pain of yet, and it happened on the Democrats watch, yet that never gets brought up.

But hey, whatever, enjoy your binary thinking of thinking being against one side automatically makes the other side good.
Click to expand...

Wait..What?! Bush was in office when Lehman and all the other banks fell. Alternate facts?
 
c_porter said:
No "net neutrality" laws for decades -> everything is fine
"net neutrality" laws for 18 months -> nothing changes
Go back to how it was for decades -> OMG MAD MAX INTERNET COMCAST RUNS BARTERTOWN
Click to expand...

Goddamnit that's funny. LOL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top