Bill to repeal Net Neutrality

[+OverSword]

Quote

 

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Ajit Pai will reportedly seek to completely repeal net neutrality rules put in place under former President Obama, according to a Monday report.

Sources close to the matter tell Politico that Pai will seek to completely remove the net neutrality rules, which reclassified internet service providers (ISPs) as telecommunications companies and required them to treat all web traffic equally.

The FCC will reportedly vote on the plan in December, according to Politico.

Pai and other Republicans have argued the Obama-era FCC overstepped its authority with the regulations by reclassifying the ISPs as common carriers.

The FCC held a months-long open comment period on its proposal to repeal the rules after facing massive backlash after releasing its initial proposal in April.

 

Source

But what are the real effects of net neurality?

Quote

 

The net neutrality debate is actually about who will influence the future of the internet. The order’s reclassification of the internet as a telecommunications service put it under utility-style Title II regulation. And just like that, voila, the internet became regulated like Ma Bell circa 1934.

That means Washington lawyers and unelected bureaucrats are now extremely influential in how this industry proceeds. Instead of engineers and investors freely innovating to give consumers what they want, the new authority will be the same folks who brought you the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Suffice it to say that federal agencies have a less than sterling record for innovation and customer service.

So what do broadband consumers actually want? They want faster broadband, they want it available more widely, and better value from their ISPs. Those innovations are the product of huge investment by broadband providers. But just the opposite, regulations drive up the cost of doing business, which results in ISPs being forced to divert money away from innovations and/or charging customers higher prices. In this way, the FCC’s net neutrality regulations harm consumers.

 

Source

or is it this?

Quote

 

The US government is going to end net neutrality, a fundamental principle of how the internet works.

Net neutrality is the idea that all internet traffic is treated the same. But the new ruling will allow internet service providers to block or slow access to specific websites, and allow them to charge for those limits to be lifted.

The Federal Communications Commission, under the direction of Donald Trump, has said that it will repeal a law that banned internet service providers from interfering with what people see on the internet and how easy it is to view. Chairman Arjit Pai, who was appointed by Mr Trump, said that the protections stopped internet companies from doing what they wanted and were an unnecessary restriction.

As such, it violates a principle that has been in place ever since the internet began: that no particular website or service can receive special treatment from the companies that power the web. Instead, service providers will be allowed to charge websites to load quicker, for instance, or force their users to pay extra if they want to access certain pages.

 

Source

[BrooklynGuy]

This will not be good for individuals and will be great for internet providers imo.

[+OverSword]

1 minute ago, BrooklynGuy said:

This will not be good for individuals and will be great for internet providers imo.

I'm thinking that eliminating regulations will enable more competition between providers, does anyone believe that having less competition in the marketplace leads to lower prices and better service?

[BrooklynGuy]

1 minute ago, OverSword said:

I'm thinking that eliminating regulations will enable more competition between providers, does anyone believe that having less competition in the marketplace leads to lower prices and better service?

This will allow service providers to decide what content we see and to throttle our service,. Competition is good this bill is bad imo, please read the whole bill.

[RoofGardener]

Well, if the third citation in OverSwords post is accurate, then this will simply cause a mass migration of website hosting AWAY from US hosting companies and onto foreign companies, in order to defeat any potential "throttling".  If the US then tries to "penalise" all traffic crossing their borders in order to prevent this trend, then the rest of the world may retaliate. The US will become an internet backwater. 

Remember: US ISP's do NOT "power the web". They only "power the web in America". Also, this is not an issue of "competition"; net neutrality does not stifle competition.

Is it a matter of "stifling competition" that all US roads require drivers to drive on the right ? Or that aircraft have to follow flight rules ? Or that all electricity supplies should be 110v (within a margin of error) ? 

Edited November 21, 2017 by RoofGardener

[+OverSword]

7 minutes ago, BrooklynGuy said:

This will allow service providers to decide what content we see and to throttle our service,. Competition is good this bill is bad imo, please read the whole bill.

It will enable them to do a lot of things that no business that wants to succeed would do, because people would flock to the guy that's not doing it.  That being mentioned as a possibility is just scare tactics to make the general public think they need the government to watch and regulate every little thing that happens.

edit to add IMO

Edited November 21, 2017 by OverSword

[aztek]

so how is this gonna affect this very site for example?  is it gonna work as it does now, or will be very slow, or blocked all together?

[Will Due]

The End.

 

 

[RoofGardener]

4 minutes ago, aztek said:

so how is this gonna affect this very site for example?  is it gonna work as it does now, or will be very slow, or blocked all together?

In reality, it probably wouldn't. If your local ISP chose to block or throttle Unexplained Mysteries, then you could simply switch to an ISP that did NOT throttle. Market forces should prevent "stupid" behavior by the ISP's. 

[+OverSword]

1 minute ago, RoofGardener said:

In reality, it probably wouldn't. If your local ISP chose to block or throttle Unexplained Mysteries, then you could simply switch to an ISP that did NOT throttle. Market forces should prevent "stupid" behavior by the ISP's. 

Exactly, that's what people fail to see.  ISP's that do the stupid things that we are told would happen would be crushed by companies that offered consumers what they want.  The current net neutrality rules prevent innovative competition, which is to the advantage of the big rich powerful companies.  For some reason people think it's the opposite of what it is.

[+OverSword]

9 minutes ago, Will Due said:

The End.

 

 

Explain why.

[RoofGardener]

1 minute ago, OverSword said:

Exactly, that's what people fail to see.  ISP's that do the stupid things that we are told would happen would be crushed by companies that offered consumers what they want.  The current net neutrality rules prevent innovative competition, which is to the advantage of the big rich powerful companies.  For some reason people think it's the opposite of what it is.

I think I'd have to disagree with you on that point OverSword. Net Neutrality means that ISP's can't discriminate in how they route packets. How does that stifle competition ? What is it that an ISP would be allowed to do, that they currently can't do ? 

[+OverSword]

2 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

I think I'd have to disagree with you on that point OverSword. Net Neutrality means that ISP's can't discriminate in how they route packets. How does that stifle competition ? What is it that an ISP would be allowed to do, that they currently can't do ? 

Why would they discriminate in how they route packets if it costs them market share?  The company that figures out how to do it better for consumers will own the market.  Remember any indication of collusion of price setting is a violation of trade law, which is the exact extent we should want the government involved. 

[Will Due]

3 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Explain why.

Control of free speech and access to all sources of information is coming to an end.

They can't allow this kind of unregulated freedom. It's costing them control. 

They can't allow someone like Trump to ever do what he did when he got elected, and do what he's still doing. Exposing them.

 

 

[+OverSword]

15 minutes ago, Will Due said:

Control of free speech and access to all sources of information is coming to an end.

They can't allow this kind of unregulated freedom. It's costing them control. 

They can't allow someone like Trump to ever do what he did when he got elected, and do what he's still doing. Exposing them.

 

 

How is this going to control free speech?  Isn't that what facebook, youtube and google been doing already?  Trying to supposedly save us from fake news?  What possible market advantage would it give an unregulated internet provider to limit your access to the thing you want to see?  If your ISP did that why wouldn't that motivate you to get your service elsewhere?  Why would all of these ISP's collaborate and keep you from going on the web where you wanted to go?  What your worrying about doesn't make any sense to anyone but a conspiracy theorist who worries that the world is coming to an end and big corporations are working with the government  to put us all in George Orwells 1984/

[Myles]

2 hours ago, BrooklynGuy said:

This will allow service providers to decide what content we see and to throttle our service,. Competition is good this bill is bad imo, please read the whole bill.

I'm with you.  I don't like this.  I live in a rural community.   I have few ISP's to choose from.   It's not like I can just keeping jumping between them. 

[Euphorbia]

1 hour ago, RoofGardener said:

In reality, it probably wouldn't. If your local ISP chose to block or throttle Unexplained Mysteries, then you could simply switch to an ISP that did NOT throttle. Market forces should prevent "stupid" behavior by the ISP's. 

In my area in the US, I effectively have few options and I believe this is the same across the country. I currently have Comcast (Cable) and my only other options are AT&T or some other satellite company. AT&T is now a satellite only company and I just don't really want an ugly dish sitting on my rooftop plus their speeds seem slower by looking at the ads I get from them. There's just not a lot of overlap in the companies here leaving people with few options.

[+OverSword]

17 minutes ago, Myles said:

I'm with you.  I don't like this.  I live in a rural community.   I have few ISP's to choose from.   It's not like I can just keeping jumping between them. 

 

4 minutes ago, Euphorbia said:

In my area in the US, I effectively have few options and I believe this is the same across the country. I currently have Comcast (Cable) and my only other options are AT&T or some other satellite company. AT&T is now a satellite only company and I just don't really want an ugly dish sitting on my rooftop plus their speeds seem slower by looking at the ads I get from them. There's just not a lot of overlap in the companies here leaving people with few options.

You have few options because government regulation has stifled competition. 

[aztek]

i wont matter how many options, if this law passes, all isp will act the same way. whether cable\fiber\dish, or mobile. 

Edited November 21, 2017 by aztek

[preacherman76]

This is a no brainer, let freedom ring

[+OverSword]

9 minutes ago, aztek said:

i wont matter how many options, if this law passes, all isp will act the same way. whether cable\fiber\dish, or mobile. 

The same way as each other?  The same way they do now?  What do you mean?

[Will Due]

1 hour ago, OverSword said:

How is this going to control free speech?  Isn't that what facebook, youtube and google been doing already?  Trying to supposedly save us from fake news?  What possible market advantage would it give an unregulated internet provider to limit your access to the thing you want to see?  If your ISP did that why wouldn't that motivate you to get your service elsewhere?  Why would all of these ISP's collaborate and keep you from going on the web where you wanted to go?  What your worrying about doesn't make any sense to anyone but a conspiracy theorist who worries that the world is coming to an end and big corporations are working with the government  to put us all in George Orwells 1984/

So you think it's a good thing?

Explain why?

 

 

[aztek]

Just now, OverSword said:

The same way as each other?  The same way they do now?  What do you mean?

same as each other

[+OverSword]

1 hour ago, Will Due said:

So you think it's a good thing?

Explain why?

You're kidding right?  Yes it's a good thing. 

Rather than type this **** again I'll just copy it from what I already made so ****ing clear.

Quote

ISP's that do the stupid things that we are told would happen would be crushed by companies that offered consumers what they want.  The current net neutrality rules prevent innovative competition, which is to the advantage of the big rich powerful companies.  For some reason people think it's the opposite of what it is.

Quote

Why would they discriminate in how they route packets if it costs them market share?  The company that figures out how to do it better for consumers will own the market.  Remember any indication of collusion of price setting is a violation of trade law, which is the exact extent we should want the government involved. 

Quote

How is this going to control free speech?  Isn't that what facebook, youtube and google been doing already?  Trying to supposedly save us from fake news?  What possible market advantage would it give an unregulated internet provider to limit your access to the thing you want to see?  If your ISP did that why wouldn't that motivate you to get your service elsewhere?  Why would all of these ISP's collaborate and keep you from going on the web where you wanted to go?  What your worrying about doesn't make any sense to anyone but a conspiracy theorist who worries that the world is coming to an end and big corporations are working with the government  to put us all in George Orwells 1984

Quote

You have few options because government regulation has stifled competition. 

 

[Paranormal Panther]

4 hours ago, Will Due said:

Control of free speech and access to all sources of information is coming to an end.

They can't allow this kind of unregulated freedom. It's costing them control. 

They can't allow someone like Trump to ever do what he did when he got elected, and do what he's still doing. Exposing them.

 

 

Google uses new algorithms to censor or silence alternative voices. YouTube prevents them from monetizing their clips if they don't outright ban them like they did with the Doctor Of Common Sense. They pulled these stunts back in the '90s after Rush Limbaugh changed the game. They still want that information monopoly that they once had.