FCC Releases Plan to End Net Neutrality!!

[Cameramonkey]

#1- Mandate ISPs allow any ISP to lease their physical distribution system (so-called "last mile") at market rates.
#2- End net neutrality.

Goodbye monopolies. Hello internet choice.

Yep. We are in the same position today that the 'Bells were in decades ago. It was cost prohibitive to run your own wires, so startups couldnt even consider opening because running all that infrastructure wasnt practical. That is what the FCC did back then and it helped.

The only roadblock would be the current .gov sanctioned monopolies that are in place to protect markets.

 

[BugI02]

There's something like 470 pages in that bill, and all sorts of code.

Is it honestly safe to make such assumptions and assume the title of the bill actually will accomplish what it says it will? That's usually never the case with any bill.

Also explain to me why george soros is in support of NN, and why google is so heavily in support of it, as is facebook. Some of the biggest threats to our country.

Exactly!


View attachment 61531

 

[BugI02]

If that was passed through the legislative process prior to NN being ended, I would completely agree. Unfortunately, that's not what's being done.

Nor was it how "Net Neutrality" was imposed to begin with. If it had been imposed via openly debated, congressionally supported legislation signed into law by a president it would be easier to support. Like Bear's Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante it was likely done by executive fiat because he knew he couldn't get the bill he wanted through that process, and what is done by executive fiat can be undone in the same way

If you want "I don't want to pay more for Netflix because; freedom and stuff" better write your congressman

If you want the Obama version of NN to hold sway and don't think you can get what you want via legislation, then you lack a leg to stand on in any argument advocating the rule of law

 

[wtburnette]

Nor was it how "Net Neutrality" was imposed to begin with. If it had been imposed via openly debated, congressionally supported legislation signed into law by a president it would be easier to support. Like Bear's Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante it was likely done by executive fiat because he knew he couldn't get the bill he wanted through that process, and what is done by executive fiat can be undone in the same way

If you want "I don't want to pay more for Netflix because; freedom and stuff" better write your congressman

If you want the Obama version of NN to hold sway and don't think you can get what you want via legislation, then you lack a leg to stand on in any argument advocating the rule of law

I'd rather have the Obama version of NN than no version. You may stand on principle and dislike it due to how it came about, but I support it despite how it came about.

 

[jamil]

Nor was it how "Net Neutrality" was imposed to begin with. If it had been imposed via openly debated, congressionally supported legislation signed into law by a president it would be easier to support. Like Bear's Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante it was likely done by executive fiat because he knew he couldn't get the bill he wanted through that process, and what is done by executive fiat can be undone in the same way

If you want "I don't want to pay more for Netflix because; freedom and stuff" better write your congressman

If you want the Obama version of NN to hold sway and don't think you can get what you want via legislation, then you lack a leg to stand on in any argument advocating the rule of law

I think this is actually where we need to be headed. Whatever is done by executive order can simply be undone by the next executive. Pens and phones accomplish and dismantle alike. I don't like it that we're actually pining to be "saved" by bureaucracy.

 

[jamil]

I'd rather have the Obama version of NN than no version. You may stand on principle and dislike it due to how it came about, but I support it despite how it came about.

You're doomed to lose then. Eventually.

A regulation is a temporary whim. You want NN for realz, write your congress ho.

 

[wtburnette]

You're doomed to lose then. Eventually.

A regulation is a temporary whim. You want NN for realz, write your congress ho.

I've done so, multiple times. I'm not disagreeing that is the best way to get it done, I'm just saying that doing away with what we already have before making it "the law" is short-sighted. Best solution would be to keep what we have in place and work on getting a law on the books. Win-Win.

Interesting article on the topic:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...-ajit-pais-plan-to-kill-net-neutrality-rules/

 

[kiddchaos]

again, i support net neutrality.

 

[jamil]

I support neutral nets. Not sure I support net neutrality.

 

[bwframe]

F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

 

[hoosierdoc]

so the internet exploded in phenomenal growth without net neutrality. We've only lived under it for two years, but now the world's going to end? Meh.

 

[JettaKnight]

so the internet exploded in phenomenal growth without net neutrality. We've only lived under it for two years, but now the world's going to end? Meh.

They said the same dang thing about the traffic lights.

 

[HoughMade]

so the internet exploded in phenomenal growth without net neutrality. We've only lived under it for two years, but now the world's going to end? Meh.

Back in something like 1997 or 1998, the FCC decided that the internet should not be regulated like telephones where the telephone providers had to lease their transmission hardware to anyone who wanted to pay the fee. With this decision, your cable provider, telephone provider (ironically) have the lion's share of ISP business. the thougt back then was that technology would move past strictly hard-wire ISPs and competition would come from other forms of transmission rather than others using the same kind of transmission.

This never really happened. Rather, it did not happen in a scale that provided real competition. (Britain doesn't have this rule and people may have 50 or more ISP options)

In steps "net neutrality" to keep the virtual monopoly (created by the FCC's position) from, essentially, charging based upon the service that people were willing to pay for....which is necessary because the FCC limits the options that would result in a market solution to this issue.

So, now "net neutrality" is gone, but the "last mile" problem remains. I think the idea is that the end of "net neutrality" will result in that tech advance that they hoped would happen, but never really did, after 1998. I fear that without another competition-enhancing move, this will not be enough. Make the ISPs lease their hardware and gvt. imposed "net neutrality" will not matter because if you don't like your service, there are dozens of options.

 

[Leadeye]

One of the disadvantages to living in the woods is limited selection for internet. It's satellite which is iffy and costly or cell phone which is really slow. Maybe someday that will change.

 

[bwframe]

Is this gonna bring us the additional (BS) charges like some have on their phone bills? Or will it bring usage rated billing?

 

[jamil]

Back in something like 1997 or 1998, the FCC decided that the internet should not be regulated like telephones where the telephone providers had to lease their transmission hardware to anyone who wanted to pay the fee. With this decision, your cable provider, telephone provider (ironically) have the lion's share of ISP business. the thougt back then was that technology would move past strictly hard-wire ISPs and competition would come from other forms of transmission rather than others using the same kind of transmission.

This never really happened. Rather, it did not happen in a scale that provided real competition. (Britain doesn't have this rule and people may have 50 or more ISP options)

In steps "net neutrality" to keep the virtual monopoly (created by the FCC's position) from, essentially, charging based upon the service that people were willing to pay for....which is necessary because the FCC limits the options that would result in a market solution to this issue.

So, now "net neutrality" is gone, but the "last mile" problem remains. I think the idea is that the end of "net neutrality" will result in that tech advance that they hoped would happen, but never really did, after 1998. I fear that without another competition-enhancing move, this will not be enough. Make the ISPs lease their hardware and gvt. imposed "net neutrality" will not matter because if you don't like your service, there are dozens of options.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to HoughMade again.

 

[seedubs1]

So ~80% of people oppose getting rid of net neutrality.....but they get rid of it anyway. Good to see the .gov really working for the people here.

(For reference, 80% is a stupid amount of agreement among people. You can't even get 50% of people to agree the sky is blue.)

"Economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence."
https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...age-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B

 

[HoughMade]

80% of people (accepting the number) apparently are believing what they are spoon fed and/or like as much government control as possible. There are good reasons to not have pure democracy and great reasons why Ross Perot's "lets have a referendum on everything" plan was idiotic.

 

[Spear Dane]

Vote postponed. Angry nerd called in bomb threat.

 

[lonehoosier]

so the internet exploded in phenomenal growth without net neutrality. We've only lived under it for two years, but now the world's going to end? Meh.

I know right?!

[video=youtube_share;34SJB36-Dhg]http://youtu.be/34SJB36-Dhg[/video]