Net Neutrality

[Geeto67]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/14/technology/net-neutrality-repeal-vote.html

 

anybody want to talk about how Ajit Pai and the Trump Administration just fucked us all?

[TTQ B4U]

Not a move I'm happy about for sure.

[Geeto67]

Not a move I'm happy about for sure.

 

Considering how you normally are, I am shocked about this.

 

the House Representatives from Ohio that supported ending net neutrality are:

- Bill Johnson (OH-06)

- Steve Chabot (OH-01)

- Brad Wenstrup (OH-02)

- Bob Gibbs (OH-07)

 

remember these names in the upcoming senate elections and unseat them. This isn't a Republican vs Democrat thing, there are plenty of Republican reps that didn't support this - this is a fucking over everyone who isn't a telecom thing.

 

 

Edit: Here is how much Money the Telecom industry paid to the above House representatives for Ohio for their support of killing NN:

 

Bill Johnson, Ohio, $196,666

Steve Chabot, Ohio, $332,083

Brad Wenstrup, Ohio, $33,750

 

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/7xwknx/republican-members-of-congress-fcc-letter

 

If an NN law gets proposed to congress, you can bet these representatives will vote it down since their votes have been bought by Telecom. Don't want them to do that? vote them out of office.

Edited December 15, 2017 by Geeto67

[BStowers023]

Doesn't congress still have to vote on this?

[Geeto67]

Doesn't congress still have to vote on this?

 

Nope. Net Neutrality wasn't a federal law, it was an F.C.C. regulation so it only needed the vote from the commission today. The commission voted 3-2 so that's it, it's done.

 

Even though the repeal happened, it isn't instant, there will be lawsuits and other battles to happen, but as of right now if say comcast wanted to restrict Netflix's bandwidth until Netflix paid them more money they totally can.

[RedRocket1647545505]

I F'n hate telecom companies.

[Not Brian]

[TTQ B4U]

Considering how you normally are, I am shocked about this.

 

the House Representatives from Ohio that supported ending net neutrality are:

- Bill Johnson (OH-06)

- Steve Chabot (OH-01)

- Brad Wenstrup (OH-02)

- Bob Gibbs (OH-07)

 

remember these names in the upcoming senate elections and unseat them. This isn't a Republican vs Democrat thing, there are plenty of Republican reps that didn't support this - this is a fucking over everyone who isn't a telecom thing.

 

Not sure why you're surprised considering you understand both points I just highlighted. No need to discuss. Let's keep the banter down for clarity sake.

[Smokey]

Fuckers

[BStowers023]

Didn't Obama put net neutrality in place when he took office? Will the internet be the same as it was before he took office? What exactly is going to change here? Are we basing potential change on the hypothetical slippery slope?

[Brandon]

I am really not worried in the slightest. Ajit was and Obama admin appointee, and just upgraded through the Trump admin. But blame Trump.

 

People vote with dollars. The "fast lanes - toll roads" already exist, google and the rest of the giants love their own they created...They wanted the neutrality for their own benefit, as it promoted a large barrier to enter the market, gee wiz.

 

People are so worried about "greed" they will let the government control everything, as they see fit; its mind blowing. I am leaning on the side of this is a good thing in reality, and no one will no any different 6 months from now. If your ISP starts pulling shenanigans people will move their dollars (well maybe the real issue is state and local Telecom districting that needs killed to allow more open competition). Innovation will continue to progress with out a government handbrake. Now if I am wrong, well so be it. I will always take the chance on free market capitalism, the worst outcomes it produces are still a better alternative.

[BStowers023]

I am really not worried in the slightest. Ajit was and Obama admin appointee, and just upgraded through the Trump admin. But blame Trump.

 

People vote with dollars. The "fast lanes - toll roads" already exist, google and the rest of the giants love their own they created...They wanted the neutrality for their own benefit, as it promoted a large barrier to enter the market, gee wiz.

 

People are so worried about "greed" they will let the government control everything, as they see fit; its mind blowing. I am leaning on the side of this is a good thing in reality, and no one will no any different 6 months from now. If your ISP starts pulling shenanigans people will move their dollars (well maybe the real issue is state and local Telecom districting that needs killed to allow more open competition). Innovation will continue to progress with out a government handbrake. Now if I am wrong, well so be it. I will always take the chance on free market capitalism, the worst outcomes it produces are still a better alternative.

 

I've been reading more into it and kind of what I got out of all this.

 

So, in broad terms, people for Net Neutrality prefers Govt regulation and people against are for a free market is what I'm gaining. People like Kerry are terrified of capitalism working (because socialist) so they want things like this tied down by regulation. People like Kerry think the Government knows best and not the citizens of this country. Guess what happens if ISPs start charging for websites and what not? People stop using it and the next man up. It's called competition and it works.

[Jewtoys]

I've been reading more into it and kind of what I got out of all this.

 

So, in broad terms, people for Net Neutrality prefers Govt regulation and people against are for a free market is what I'm gaining. People like Kerry are terrified of capitalism working (because socialist) so they want things like this tied down by regulation. People like Kerry think the Government knows best and not the citizens of this country. Guess what happens if ISPs start charging for websites and what not? People stop using it and the next man up. It's called competition and it works.

 

You're obviously not educated on the subject.

[BStowers023]

You're obviously not educated on the subject.

 

Educate me then.

 

How did we survive with the horrible internet from, well when it was created until 2015?

[Geeto67]

Didn't Obama put net neutrality in place when he took office?

 

No. Net Neutrality has been a topic of conversation since the late 1980's and is closely linked to the same acts which decentralized the Telephone companies in the 1980's.

 

What we now know as Net Neutrality has it's origin in "principles of Network Freedom", which was introduced by (now former) FCC chairman Michael Powell, under the W Administration (Powell was appointed by W) and further shored up by several lawsuits in 2005. We have had 4 successive FCC chairmen since then (not counting Ajit) and all of them added to the original principles. Tom Wheeler, the Appointee before Ajit, published the most recent rules on net neutrality in 2015. Tom Wheeler is a particularly interesting person because he was a democrat against Net Neutrality prior to his appointment, however several actions on the part of the telecomunications companies that lead to lawsuits changed his position and led to the final Net Neutrality rules.

 

 

Will the internet be the same as it was before he took office? What exactly is going to change here? Are we basing potential change on the hypothetical slippery slope?

 

No. It will be the same as it was in the early 1990s. It is not hypothetical, in 2007 comcast was shown to be favoring higher paying customers over lower paying customers, the suit was mostly around bit torrent sites but other large file download apps were affected as well. Prior to that, in 2004-05 there was the issue of bundling with DSL and dailup where providers were forcing you to sign up for bundled services in order to improve web traffic. prior to that there was the Madison river case were voice over dial up users were being throttled so as to promote traditional telephone services in smaller markets. This isn't a perceived hypothetical, the telecoms began abusing their customers right out of the gate and would have continued doing so had the FCC not taken a stand.

 

Furthermore it draws a ton of parallels with what happened with Ma Bell and the eventually antitrust actions that caused the break up of the phone company. I know you are way to young to remember this but long distance used to be freakishly expensive - is it now? no? because of regulation.

 

 

 

I am really not worried in the slightest. Ajit was and Obama admin appointee, and just upgraded through the Trump admin. But blame Trump.

 

Ajit was an Obama appointee to the commission but not to head of FCC. Ajit was appointed by Obama under the recommendation of Mitch McConnell as part of some good will that Obama was seeking for a different bill that he needed republican support on.

 

Trump appointed him to the head of the FCC in January, and did so specifically because of his position against net neutrality (he made a point of mentioning it in the appointment). So yes, blame Trump, because this was exactly the outcome he wanted when he installed Ajit in there. Under Obama Ajit as a member of the commission did not have the power to repeal this item.

 

People vote with dollars. The "fast lanes - toll roads" already exist, google and the rest of the giants love their own they created...They wanted the neutrality for their own benefit, as it promoted a large barrier to enter the market, gee wiz.

 

The "toll roads" exist because of the equipment, not because of discriminatory throttling. When any user signs up to the service they get the same free and open internet that the equipment can provide as anybody else signed up for that equipment. This isn't an issue about "speed" this is an issue about directing you to pay for other services by being selective about your content, and it occurs at the level of who owns the transmission lines, not the end service provider renting space on those lines.

 

So there are people who look at internet as a competitive good, and people who look at it as a public utility. So which is it? well, since 2005 the government has treated the internet as a public utility and correctly done so because it bottlenecks. Deregulating a utility always leads to abuse of the customers because there is no other competitive choice for the customers to go to.

 

People are so worried about "greed" they will let the government control everything, as they see fit; its mind blowing. I am leaning on the side of this is a good thing in reality, and no one will no any different 6 months from now. If your ISP starts pulling shenanigans people will move their dollars (well maybe the real issue is state and local Telecom districting that needs killed to allow more open competition). Innovation will continue to progress with out a government handbrake. Now if I am wrong, well so be it. I will always take the chance on free market capitalism, the worst outcomes it produces are still a better alternative.

 

People are not worried about "greed", greed is assumed in this situation. What they are worried about is the abuses returning that caused for the regulations in the first place. People didn't ask the government to do this because of some hypothetical "greed" there were actual cases that lead to lawsuits that forced the FCC to make a decision one way or the other. It evolved holistically in response to the telecoms taking advantage of their customers.

 

You are right, 6 months is not enough time to feel the effects. There will be lawsuits, acts of congress, etc...that will slow the implementation down. Plus the telecoms don't want to make any fast decisions because it could lead to a judicial stay while the case is adjudicated. However, 2 years is more reasonable a time frame to see change provided this goes unchecked.

Edited December 15, 2017 by Geeto67

[CRed05]

Right...we'll just go on to the other ISP if one starts blocking certain sites

 

How many choices do you have where you live? 1? 2? 3?

 

Certain things need regulated, get over it.

[RC K9]

Right...we'll just go on to the other ISP if one starts blocking certain sites

 

How many choices do you have where you live? 1? 2? 3?

 

Certain things need regulated, get over it.

 

I'm with this. In the places that have one ISP option, like where my buddy lived in FL, you are screwed.

 

I am usually all about the government getting out of my life as much as possible, but this stuff I feel really needs regulated.

[RC K9]

I was trying to get an understanding of NN and different perspectives. Here is wht my buddy had to say about it:

 

" Me: thoughts on net neutrality?

 

Eric:

It’s ded, unfortunately

Maybe it will be okay for people like I assume is who can actually afford better internet, I just don’t want to go back to the days of cable where your websites are grouped into packages

 

Me: The argument I keep hearing against the repeal is that providers can choose to load some content more slowly than others. but if that were the case, wouldn't the free market keep that in check? i.e. would it really behoove a provider to do that? I would think it would just cause consumers to find a provider who fifn't

"didn't

 

Eric:

ISPs are natural monopolies, most people don’t have the option to switch

Otherwise yes that would be the case

 

Me:

ahhh

 

Eric Jones:

Here was my issue back in 2014 when they made the net neutrality rules. Let’s say I want to watch Netflix. I pay my isp to connect to Netflix’s servers. Netflix pay thier isp to have servers available. Let’s say that Netflix has 10 ports available for traffic, but Comcast only connects to 5 of them, but has enough traffic that it should be using all 10 available. Who pays for the extra 5 ports? Comcast says Netflix, so Netflix eats the cost. If NN is killed, we will pay that price. The issue is I ALREADY PAYED Comcast for that connection

So they will get to double dip under the guise of ‘fast lanes’ when in fact they are just establishing the connections we already pay for but they are too cheap to upgrade.

 

Me:

hmmm

but again, wouldn't consumers help regulate that by choosing a different provider?

like, fk you spectrum, i'm going to frontier?

 

Eric Jones:

That works in markets where that is an option

When I lived in Florida it was Comcast or nothing

Thankfully here I do have a choice of WoW or spectrum, but if they both decided to act shitty what is my option then?

Remember the cable companies already split up the physical wires into territories where they specifically don’t compete

And they pay money to lobby against municipal fiber so that they are the only game in town

Also with the Netflix example that isn’t an issue people would even see. They would just see that thier Netflix sucks and assume the issue is on the Netflix side because of the saturated ports on the Comcast side for Netflix connections to other services might be okay so it would be reasonable to assume the fault is with Netflix not the isp

 

Me:

ahhhh, that makes sense

so I would think municipal hardware would make sense...

 

Eric Jones:

That would be what I would want, but then it needs to be regulated like a utility

So we are back to title 2

We already payed these companies for fiber internet in the 90’s and they never really made good on that 😔

It’s hard to blame capitalists for capitalizing, but yea. We really got the short end of the stick on that one. Not enough strings attached to the monies"

[Richard Cranium]

Educate me then.

 

How did we survive with the horrible internet from, well when it was created until 2015?

 

It wasn't horrible, but ISPs were starting to pull some fucky shit. Blocking ports on their firewalls to shut down VOIP services that were competing with their own VOIP service for instance. Net neutrality was in response to businesses/ISPs taking advantage of their power, and using it unfairly. While I understand that it is not a utility, internet access has almost become one. Many people don't really have a choice what ISP they use, so it's not the normal, "if you don't like them, don't use them".

 

There are a lot of theoretical ways that ISPs can abuse their position that are being thrown around. The argument is that they are only theoretical, and that companies won't abuse their position. We know that most companies will. Profit is a huge motivator. I like to believe that people in general are good and we look out for each other. Corporations on the other hand hide behind the shield of .Inc and will fuck over anyone or anything they choose to in the name of profit.

 

I don't think we will see it right away. But slowly over time ISPs will start to exert their influence. Streaming services, web sites, online gaming, internet access in general will be negatively effected in the long run. There is no positive way for this to be interpreted for us little guys who are the end users of these services.

[cstmg8]

Will this also affect content accessed through cellular data sources?

 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[Geeto67]

I've been reading more into it and kind of what I got out of all this.

 

So, in broad terms, people for Net Neutrality prefers Govt regulation and people against are for a free market is what I'm gaining. People like Kerry are terrified of capitalism working (because socialist) so they want things like this tied down by regulation. People like Kerry think the Government knows best and not the citizens of this country.

 

So first of all: awww you were doing so well and then you let your ignorance climb to the top and fuck you into the ground. Please, for the love of god stop being so uninformed.

 

 

Guess what happens if ISPs start charging for websites and what not? People stop using it and the next man up. It's called competition and it works.

 

Actually this is the opposite of competition. This deregulation gives ISPs the power to extort the content providers and play favorites. It both interferes and eliminates competition because the ISPs can choose to charge smaller companies that provide competing products higher access fees to their customer bases across their lines. It basically makes the ISP a partner in every business because those business now have to pay to get access past the filter.

 

Think about it like this: If you are the landline telephone provider and the ISP in a midsize town, you can now throttle every voip call across your lines down to 0, so people have to buy your landlines to use their home telephones. Where is the competition in that? This is not a hypothetical: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/03/25/AR2005032501328.html

 

Also think about the lines and the competitive local exchange carriers. There is an Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier who owns the transmission lines (the monolopy carrier) and the competitive local exchange carrier who buys space on the incumbent's lines. The Incumbents were bundling services and handicapping the CLEC's so that the majority of customers were driven to buy their services, and because they owned the lines it was take it or leave it for the CLEC's. The FCC intervened, the ILEC's sued and the court sided with the ILEC's. Immediately after the CLEC's closed in a lot of markets. How is that competitive if the owner of the lines can just drive their competitors for other services out of business? That case, gave traction to the beginning of net neutrality because if the court wasn't going to let the FCC protect the competitors in the marketplace, it could regulate the pipeline to create a situation that supported competition.

[Geeto67]

Will this also affect content accessed through cellular data sources?

 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

Yes, and they will probably be the most visibly affected and the first affected because of regulations that require disclosure in the billing cycle that you wouldn't see in your ISP bill.

[Sledhead36]

Oh, the sky is falling...... ugh.

Name ONE thing the government created controls, that has done better than it was before......and did not do better once they got out....

 

This is a great thing. You can re-read this a year from now.

[Jewtoys]

So first of all: awww you were doing so well and then you let your ignorance climb to the top and fuck you into the ground. Please, for the love of god stop being so uninformed.

 

 

 

 

Actually this is the opposite of competition. This deregulation gives ISPs the power to extort the content providers and play favorites. It both interferes and eliminates competition because the ISPs can choose to charge smaller companies that provide competing products higher access fees to their customer bases across their lines. It basically makes the ISP a partner in every business because those business now have to pay to get access past the filter.

 

Think about it like this: If you are the landline telephone provider and the ISP in a midsize town, you can now throttle every voip call across your lines down to 0, so people have to buy your landlines to use their home telephones. Where is the competition in that? This is not a hypothetical: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/03/25/AR2005032501328.html

 

Also think about the lines and the competitive local exchange carriers. There is an Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier who owns the transmission lines (the monolopy carrier) and the competitive local exchange carrier who buys space on the incumbent's lines. The Incumbents were bundling services and handicapping the CLEC's so that the majority of customers were driven to buy their services, and because they owned the lines it was take it or leave it for the CLEC's. The FCC intervened, the ILEC's sued and the court sided with the ILEC's. Immediately after the CLEC's closed in a lot of markets. How is that competitive if the owner of the lines can just drive their competitors for other services out of business? That case, gave traction to the beginning of net neutrality because if the court wasn't going to let the FCC protect the competitors in the marketplace, it could regulate the pipeline to create a situation that supported competition.

 

 

 

Nothing is more irritating. People love to blindly have an opinion on something, they don't know anything about.

[Geeto67]

Name ONE thing the government created controls, that has done better than it was before......and did not do better once they got out....

 

Well if the government improves something they don't "get out" so.....your challenge is false on it's face.

 

But to answer the first part of your question:

 

Employment, environment, The telecommunications industry, shipping, Aviation, Nuclear Power, Electric Power...I mean, there are a lot. But you will argue because "better" is subjective and for you it is probably only focused on revenue and excludes public benefit or human cost.

 

I will openly agree that there are regulations that overshot, and not "everything" has to be regulated, but this position that nothing should be regulated is just nonsense.