Net Neutrality Act repealed

[BuccaneerBrad]

Thoughts on this?  I, for one, am in favor of it.  If you want faster internet and are willing to pay for it, you should be allowed to.

[Spider-Dan]

That's not what net neutrality does.  What "net neutrality" means is that internet service providers are not allowed to examine where your traffic is going and change the speed based on the destination.

With net neutrality, if you pay for 100Mb service from Comcast, then Comcast is obligated to do their best to provide you 100Mb service, no matter what part of the internet you are using.
Without net neutrality, if you pay for 100Mb service from Comcast, Comcast can then go to (say) Netflix and say, "We see you have a lot of customers using our bandwidth.  We might have to throttle Netflix connections down to 5Mb to preserve our quality of service.  That is, unless you give us extra money."

A huge company like Netflix can pay that.  But what about a smaller company trying to start a new idea?  If they have a lot of traffic, ISPs can simply demand more money on the back end, or throttle them until their product is useless.

Given that nearly every market in the U.S. has a monopoly or duopoly in broadband access, this means without net neutrality, the 4-5 major ISPs in the country can basically choose which websites are fast and which are slow.  Add to that the fact that AT&T, Comcast, and Time Warner Cable all offer streaming products that compete with Netflix, and you can see how these media companies can leverage their ISP product to drive competitors out of business.  (AT&T already does a lesser version of this; you have monthly caps on how much bandwidth you can use, but U-Verse TV and DirecTV don't count against that cap, which means Netflix is capped but AT&T's TV streaming isn't.)

[Spider-Dan]

Because everyone loves car analogies:

Imagine that the highway system, instead of being public, was built out as private toll roads, and that over the course of decades, GM/Ford/Chrysler bought out all of the smaller toll road companies so that they were the only three toll road providers.  Net neutrality is like saying that the Big Three can set their own speed limits on their roads, but that the speed limit may not be based on the brand of car.  And the AT&T/DirecTV streaming scenario I mentioned is like saying that for $50/month you can drive 1000 miles on the roads, but it's $10 extra for every 100 miles after that... unless you are driving a GM car on a GM road (etc.), in which case you can drive as much as you want.  It should be obvious that such a situation would be quite hostile to Toyota, Volkswagen, and the other car companies.

[DaLittle B]

It's not about "faster internet"......That's total B.S.,it can be used to throttle competition,and free speech.Giving the power to the big corporations,to make the decisions for you,on where you can and can't go on the internet.

In very plain English from the New york times...

These are the rules that were repealed
The original rules went into effect in 2015 and laid out a regulatory plan that addressed a rapidly changing internet. Under those regulations, broadband service was considered a utility under Title II of the Communications Act, giving the F.C.C. broad power over internet providers. The rules prohibited the following practices:

BLOCKING Internet service providers could not discriminate against any lawful content by blocking websites or apps.

THROTTLING Service providers could not slow the transmission of data based on the nature of the content, as long as it is legal.

PAID PRIORITIZATION Service providers could not create an internet fast lane for companies and consumers who pay premiums, and a slow lane for those who don’t.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/14/technology/net-neutrality-rules.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

Those simple protections put in place to protect us,the consumer.

[Tenshot13]

You should listen to Spider and B on this one, they're 100% correct.  This is all happening because Ajit Pai is a Verizon shill.  If you don't believe me, Google Verizon shill.

[fyo]

No question this is bad for consumers and very, very bad for startups. It's not going to make a huge difference to most established sites, except for very high bandwidth ones (Netflix, YouTube), where an ISP could either force the consumer to pay extra or make the destination pay extra.

The lack of net neutrality, although completely stupid, wouldn't necessarily have a huge impact if actual competition existed between Internet Service Providers.

[CF DolFan]

The bottom line I get from repealing net neutrality is that the government isn’t “overseeing” the process so less taxes. We go back to the same standards we were under in 2015 so if you didn’t have issues then ... you shouldn’t now either. Basically we were paying the government to get involved with our online services. All this fear mongering about what “could” happen seems like wasted energy to me.

[Sunstroke]

All this fear mongering about what “could” happen seems like wasted energy to me.

1) Worrying about "what could be" usually seems like wasted energy until it becomes "what is."
2) We're going to give massive corporations the option to screw the end user for profit...and you think they won't exploit that opportunity?

[CF DolFan]

1) Worrying about "what could be" usually seems like wasted energy until it becomes "what is."
2) We're going to give massive corporations the option to screw the end user for profit...and you think they won't exploit that opportunity?

Why didn't they "screw the end user" before 2015? Did they just suddenly become greedier or is there more to it?

[Cathal]

I can't believe there would be people in favor of this move. They're probably also in favor of the tax bill. Just sad...

The FCC actually kept the net neutral as best as it could in the years before. The 2015 stuff was to codify it. We absolutely need this stuff to remain in place. That stuff that the ISP did to NetFlix that throttled service to it a little while ago if NetFlix didn't pay up? That would become standard without these rules.

[DaLittle B]

They did....and there was endless fights over it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_States

Yeah, I know that's not to be believed...

Follow the money! AT&T,Verizon,Comcast all own networks,and broadcasting rights,and keep acquiring more of them...



My favorite,may not be safe for work is Trae Crowder's take on Net Neutrality (Then again, I'm a big fan of his rants,and comedy)...It's using PORN websites to explain it...
https://youtu.be/NcQKtL2pY8M?t=1m24s

[Spider-Dan]

Why didn't they "screw the end user" before 2015?

Netflix already agreed to pay Comcast a premium in 2014, after many users complained about slow service.

[Dave Gray]

This is terrible.  Anyone who supports this is an idiot.

The Internet is a utility and this decision was bought and paid for by corporations trying to make a buck off of consumers.  It's fucking terrible bullshit.  This isn't a conservative/liberal thing -- it's telecom companies buying a law that allows them to exploit the market.

If you support this, fuck you.

[Tenshot13]

This is terrible.  Anyone who supports this is an idiot.

The Internet is a utility and this decision was bought and paid for by corporations trying to make a buck off of consumers.  It's fucking terrible bullshit.  This isn't a conservative/liberal thing -- it's telecom companies buying a law that allows them to exploit the market.

If you support this, fuck you.

Couldn't agree with you more Dave.  There is a ginormous amount of American citizens that don't want this to happen.  The FCC knows this and still doesn't care or even try to hide it.  That scumbag Ajit Pai is even making jokes about being a shill, like it's not a big deal.  It's insanity that almost the entire population of the U.S. doesn't want this and they're still pushing it through to fill their pocket.  Sickening.

[Dave Gray]

This is an absolutely indefensible position.  Nobody who actually understands the issue actually supports it. 

You can tell by OP saying "you should be able to pay for faster Internet if you want" which has literally zero to do with Net Neutrality.

Net Neutrality treats the Internet like other utilities.  The power company sells you electricity.  It works the same, regardless of what you plug into the wall.   If the power company gave preferential power to GE appliances, but you're out of luck if you own a Kenmore stove -- that's what repealing Net Neutrality is.  Then Kenmore would have to pay the power company to get preferential treatment.  And the cost of your stove will go up to compensate. 

And guess what, the next company to make the new innovation in stoves is like "We can't compete to pay off the power company to get the preferential treatment", so you'll stall the technology.

This whole thing is terrible for consumers.  It's not even a debatable issue.  The put a corporate troll from Verizon in a position to wipe a law that will give these telecoms power to fuck consumers.  Bend over, idiots.

The best position to defend it is "they might not fuck us".