FCC Repealed Net Neutrality Today
- Thread starter LoneRanger
- Start date
- Status
It does not need to go through Congress. But Congress could make laws to prevent it from going through.
I do not think you will see much change. I think the ISPs are not looking to cause a lot of public turmoil. They know it could be switched back on easily with a lot of public outcry.
I blame the guy that you know who appointed to head the FCC. He had been an executive at Verizon.
Basically the ISP is a monopoly for most people you only have one choice and thus regulation is needed.
I do not think you will see much change. I think the ISPs are not looking to cause a lot of public turmoil. They know it could be switched back on easily with a lot of public outcry.
I blame the guy that you know who appointed to head the FCC. He had been an executive at Verizon.
Basically the ISP is a monopoly for most people you only have one choice and thus regulation is needed.
Originally Posted By: RichardS
Well guys, it's been fun.
But if my internet provider wants more money to access the few sites I use, I'll be offline until I go back to California, or Washington, or whichever state is smart enough to bring on state-side net neutrality rules.
I think you'll see a lot of states jump on that band wagon. Just another stupid thing done by those who can.
Well guys, it's been fun.
But if my internet provider wants more money to access the few sites I use, I'll be offline until I go back to California, or Washington, or whichever state is smart enough to bring on state-side net neutrality rules.
I think you'll see a lot of states jump on that band wagon. Just another stupid thing done by those who can.
Originally Posted By: dishdude
The cable companies are trying to stop the hemorrhaging of TV subscribers by people cutting the cord and using streaming services like Netflix and Sling to watch TV. I see them charging extra to use streaming services, and/or going to those companies for money. They'll also try pushing their own services.
I'm thinking of cutting the TV cable cord all together and just go with main channel TV air waves. Save myself $1200/year. On the internet provider front, I think some of these providers know most people are addicted to their service and they will "boil the frog slowly" if given the chance to do so. Repealing this law will give them that option.
The cable companies are trying to stop the hemorrhaging of TV subscribers by people cutting the cord and using streaming services like Netflix and Sling to watch TV. I see them charging extra to use streaming services, and/or going to those companies for money. They'll also try pushing their own services.
I'm thinking of cutting the TV cable cord all together and just go with main channel TV air waves. Save myself $1200/year. On the internet provider front, I think some of these providers know most people are addicted to their service and they will "boil the frog slowly" if given the chance to do so. Repealing this law will give them that option.
Can this not result in sanctioned defacto censorship? It's almost like the internet equivalent of repealing the Constitution/CORAF. We wouldn't want to live in a city with 10 lane highways that led only to McDonalds, WalMart etc with only single-lane toll roads to your home, friends, family, or anywhere else that is not directly profitable would we? Let's just see what the US telecoms will do next....
Originally Posted By: bdcardinal
I still haven't been able to get anyone to explain what it is or isn't rationally without getting heated politically.
It's actually pretty simple. Think of the trucking industry. They operate as "common carriers" and they are not responsible for the goods they carry in their trucks - they don't buy them from the shipper and sell them to the receiver. They just carry them and deliver them. "Net neutral" ISP's are the same - anyone can ship anything across their wires at any time and they never take ownership of the content as it passes.
Removing net neutrality means that ISP's will be legally able to look at YOUR traffic and decide whether they'll deliver it, deliver it at a premium price or not deliver it at all. For most people in the USA, there aren't a lot of competing carriers in most neighborhoods, so there's little competition to keep the costs under control. There's one big ISP and maybe a few little guys struggling to survive, so you have to deal with the big one if you want decent service. Now let's go back to the trucking analogy. If there was only one trucking company serving your city, and it's legal for Toyota to pay them to delay delivery of Hondas by a month, and maybe Fords by two months, to any dealer within 100 miles of your city, how would you feel about that?
Coming soon to an internet near you.
I still haven't been able to get anyone to explain what it is or isn't rationally without getting heated politically.
It's actually pretty simple. Think of the trucking industry. They operate as "common carriers" and they are not responsible for the goods they carry in their trucks - they don't buy them from the shipper and sell them to the receiver. They just carry them and deliver them. "Net neutral" ISP's are the same - anyone can ship anything across their wires at any time and they never take ownership of the content as it passes.
Removing net neutrality means that ISP's will be legally able to look at YOUR traffic and decide whether they'll deliver it, deliver it at a premium price or not deliver it at all. For most people in the USA, there aren't a lot of competing carriers in most neighborhoods, so there's little competition to keep the costs under control. There's one big ISP and maybe a few little guys struggling to survive, so you have to deal with the big one if you want decent service. Now let's go back to the trucking analogy. If there was only one trucking company serving your city, and it's legal for Toyota to pay them to delay delivery of Hondas by a month, and maybe Fords by two months, to any dealer within 100 miles of your city, how would you feel about that?
Coming soon to an internet near you.
gathermewool
Site Donor 2023
I hear a lot of people say they will vote with their wallet and cancel service, but I don't believe most of you. I'm not even sure I would be OK with just the radio, unless my bill tripled. I only pay for internet now, as it is, and I consider it one of the few very expensive luxuries in my life that I'm not willing to part with.
Originally Posted By: PeterPolyol
Can this not result in sanctioned defacto censorship? It's almost like the internet equivalent of repealing the Constitution/CORAF...
Somebody has to figure out how repealing net neutrality violates the Second Amendment. That'll bring it back in a hurry.
Can this not result in sanctioned defacto censorship? It's almost like the internet equivalent of repealing the Constitution/CORAF...
Somebody has to figure out how repealing net neutrality violates the Second Amendment. That'll bring it back in a hurry.
4WD
$50 site donor 2024
Yep - did that at the bay house and wound up fixing a few things or fishing instead of staring at the screen …
Besides ~ I’m all caught up on Walker re runs
Besides ~ I’m all caught up on Walker re runs
The ISPs are no more than utility providers and should be regulated as such.
Oh, wait, we don't do utilities that way anymore either.
Explain to me how "deregulation" has benefitted the ratepayers with electricity, natural gas and telecom.
It hasn't, has it?
The simple fact is that if your ISP decides to block BITOG, you won't be visiting here anymore.
This FCC rule gives them that authority.
Oh, wait, we don't do utilities that way anymore either.
Explain to me how "deregulation" has benefitted the ratepayers with electricity, natural gas and telecom.
It hasn't, has it?
The simple fact is that if your ISP decides to block BITOG, you won't be visiting here anymore.
This FCC rule gives them that authority.
4WD
$50 site donor 2024
Last edited:
I don't see much impact for the worse. In fact, the increased competition has the potential to make it better. The increase in viable competition helped out the consumer in the cell phone market bringing about nearly universal unlimited data services. When you live in an area like mine, which is dominated by AT&T with little else to choose from, some competition would be a breath of fresh air in a market where most AT&T customers have felt neglected and overcharged.
As for repealing Net Neutrality allowing for censorship by the ISPs... we already experience censorship. The battle here is between ISPs (AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, etc) and Content Providers (Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc). The stuff we put on the internet is already censored, but by the Content Providers which is almost worse because due to Net Neutrality, the regulations make it nearly impossible for another service to compete with a company in their market such as Facebook. There is documented evidence of censorship by Facebook and YouTube against Right-favoring ads and news articles. Repealing Net Neutrality just means that it is possible for ISPs to censor the Content Providers, only the difference is that you can find a new ISP. You can't find a new Facebook or YouTube, at least not one that provides nearly the same amount of content and connectivity.
Either way, both sides of the argument offer valid points. I fall somewhat in the middle here, as I think the consumer loses either way. However, I do not believe that the repeal of Net Neutrality is the "end of the Internet as we know it", and the amount of fear mongering and mislabeling that has been going on the last 24-48 hours is absolutely absurd.
As for repealing Net Neutrality allowing for censorship by the ISPs... we already experience censorship. The battle here is between ISPs (AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, etc) and Content Providers (Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc). The stuff we put on the internet is already censored, but by the Content Providers which is almost worse because due to Net Neutrality, the regulations make it nearly impossible for another service to compete with a company in their market such as Facebook. There is documented evidence of censorship by Facebook and YouTube against Right-favoring ads and news articles. Repealing Net Neutrality just means that it is possible for ISPs to censor the Content Providers, only the difference is that you can find a new ISP. You can't find a new Facebook or YouTube, at least not one that provides nearly the same amount of content and connectivity.
Either way, both sides of the argument offer valid points. I fall somewhat in the middle here, as I think the consumer loses either way. However, I do not believe that the repeal of Net Neutrality is the "end of the Internet as we know it", and the amount of fear mongering and mislabeling that has been going on the last 24-48 hours is absolutely absurd.
Things were fine pre 2015 and I don't think much will change.
ISPs realize that if they start blocking things it will be huge bad publicity and while there may not be much competition beyond the 2 providers most get (Telco and Cable) if enough people get fed up, the municipalites may start revoking cable's franchise and/or look into municipal broadband. Or a new wISP may show up.
Not to mention if it start threatening the revenue of the big dogs lawsuits will fly, dollars will be spent, and things will go back to the way it was before. Or someone like Google, Apple, Facebook, etc will buy, say Comcast and be done with the nonsense. Or Google will revive Google Fiber.
And if you want to blame the current administration - there's plenty of blame to go around. Ajit Pai got his start at the FCC by the previous guy in 2012. He got his promotion in March.
ISPs realize that if they start blocking things it will be huge bad publicity and while there may not be much competition beyond the 2 providers most get (Telco and Cable) if enough people get fed up, the municipalites may start revoking cable's franchise and/or look into municipal broadband. Or a new wISP may show up.
Not to mention if it start threatening the revenue of the big dogs lawsuits will fly, dollars will be spent, and things will go back to the way it was before. Or someone like Google, Apple, Facebook, etc will buy, say Comcast and be done with the nonsense. Or Google will revive Google Fiber.
And if you want to blame the current administration - there's plenty of blame to go around. Ajit Pai got his start at the FCC by the previous guy in 2012. He got his promotion in March.
Originally Posted By: JustN89
I don't see much impact for the worse. In fact, the increased competition has the potential to make it better. The increase in viable competition helped out the consumer in the cell phone market bringing about nearly universal unlimited data services. When you live in an area like mine, which is dominated by AT&T with little else to choose from, some competition would be a breath of fresh air in a market where most AT&T customers have felt neglected and overcharged.
As for repealing Net Neutrality allowing for censorship by the ISPs... we already experience censorship. The battle here is between ISPs (AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, etc) and Content Providers (Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc). The stuff we put on the internet is already censored, but by the Content Providers which is almost worse because due to Net Neutrality, the regulations make it nearly impossible for another service to compete with a company in their market such as Facebook. There is documented evidence of censorship by Facebook and YouTube against Right-favoring ads and news articles. Repealing Net Neutrality just means that it is possible for ISPs to censor the Content Providers, only the difference is that you can find a new ISP. You can't find a new Facebook or YouTube, at least not one that provides nearly the same amount of content and connectivity.
Either way, both sides of the argument offer valid points. I fall somewhat in the middle here, as I think the consumer loses either way. However, I do not believe that the repeal of Net Neutrality is the "end of the Internet as we know it", and the amount of fear mongering and mislabeling that has been going on the last 24-48 hours is absolutely absurd.
I don't see much impact for the worse. In fact, the increased competition has the potential to make it better. The increase in viable competition helped out the consumer in the cell phone market bringing about nearly universal unlimited data services. When you live in an area like mine, which is dominated by AT&T with little else to choose from, some competition would be a breath of fresh air in a market where most AT&T customers have felt neglected and overcharged.
As for repealing Net Neutrality allowing for censorship by the ISPs... we already experience censorship. The battle here is between ISPs (AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, etc) and Content Providers (Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc). The stuff we put on the internet is already censored, but by the Content Providers which is almost worse because due to Net Neutrality, the regulations make it nearly impossible for another service to compete with a company in their market such as Facebook. There is documented evidence of censorship by Facebook and YouTube against Right-favoring ads and news articles. Repealing Net Neutrality just means that it is possible for ISPs to censor the Content Providers, only the difference is that you can find a new ISP. You can't find a new Facebook or YouTube, at least not one that provides nearly the same amount of content and connectivity.
Either way, both sides of the argument offer valid points. I fall somewhat in the middle here, as I think the consumer loses either way. However, I do not believe that the repeal of Net Neutrality is the "end of the Internet as we know it", and the amount of fear mongering and mislabeling that has been going on the last 24-48 hours is absolutely absurd.
Originally Posted By: bdcardinal
I still haven't been able to get anyone to explain what it is or isn't rationally without getting heated politically.
You are exactly correct! None of us know the details. We have our opinions derived from all kinds of fake news. These big companies are not going to massively [censored] off their customers. What I don't like is these large companies controlling the content and delivery. The FTC should not allow these large mergers. Look at Sat. radio for ex.
I still haven't been able to get anyone to explain what it is or isn't rationally without getting heated politically.
You are exactly correct! None of us know the details. We have our opinions derived from all kinds of fake news. These big companies are not going to massively [censored] off their customers. What I don't like is these large companies controlling the content and delivery. The FTC should not allow these large mergers. Look at Sat. radio for ex.
Originally Posted By: jaj
Originally Posted By: bdcardinal
I still haven't been able to get anyone to explain what it is or isn't rationally without getting heated politically.
It's actually pretty simple. Think of the trucking industry. They operate as "common carriers" and they are not responsible for the goods they carry in their trucks - they don't buy them from the shipper and sell them to the receiver. They just carry them and deliver them. "Net neutral" ISP's are the same - anyone can ship anything across their wires at any time and they never take ownership of the content as it passes.
Removing net neutrality means that ISP's will be legally able to look at YOUR traffic and decide whether they'll deliver it, deliver it at a premium price or not deliver it at all. For most people in the USA, there aren't a lot of competing carriers in most neighborhoods, so there's little competition to keep the costs under control. There's one big ISP and maybe a few little guys struggling to survive, so you have to deal with the big one if you want decent service. Now let's go back to the trucking analogy. If there was only one trucking company serving your city, and it's legal for Toyota to pay them to delay delivery of Hondas by a month, and maybe Fords by two months, to any dealer within 100 miles of your city, how would you feel about that?
Coming soon to an internet near you.
I think you have it backwards.
Originally Posted By: bdcardinal
I still haven't been able to get anyone to explain what it is or isn't rationally without getting heated politically.
It's actually pretty simple. Think of the trucking industry. They operate as "common carriers" and they are not responsible for the goods they carry in their trucks - they don't buy them from the shipper and sell them to the receiver. They just carry them and deliver them. "Net neutral" ISP's are the same - anyone can ship anything across their wires at any time and they never take ownership of the content as it passes.
Removing net neutrality means that ISP's will be legally able to look at YOUR traffic and decide whether they'll deliver it, deliver it at a premium price or not deliver it at all. For most people in the USA, there aren't a lot of competing carriers in most neighborhoods, so there's little competition to keep the costs under control. There's one big ISP and maybe a few little guys struggling to survive, so you have to deal with the big one if you want decent service. Now let's go back to the trucking analogy. If there was only one trucking company serving your city, and it's legal for Toyota to pay them to delay delivery of Hondas by a month, and maybe Fords by two months, to any dealer within 100 miles of your city, how would you feel about that?
Coming soon to an internet near you.
I think you have it backwards.
Originally Posted By: loneryder
[These big companies are not going to massively [censored] off their customers.
They'd never do that...
Comcast Is America's Most Hated Company
[These big companies are not going to massively [censored] off their customers.
They'd never do that...
Comcast Is America's Most Hated Company
- Status
