Net Neutrality to go bye-bye

[Starman]

The Federal Communications Commission took aim at a signature Obama-era regulation Tuesday, unveiling a plan that would give Internet providers broad powers to determine what websites and online services their customers see and use.

Under the agency’s proposal, providers of high-speed Internet services, such as Comcast, Verizon and AT&T, would be able to block websites they do not like and charge Web companies for speedier delivery of their content.

The FCC’s effort would roll back its net neutrality regulation which was passed by the agency’s Democrats in 2015 and attempted to make sure all Web content, whether from big or small companies, would be treated equally by Internet providers.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ts-plan-to-rollback-its-net-neutrality-rules/

Net Neutrality is nothing more than a scheme by which companies can pass along part of their cost of doing business to the consumer (Want to watch lots of Netflix and other bandwidth-intensive things? Fork over the cash.) It was sold as "freedom" for broadband consumers, but it was nothing of the sort. It is a giveaway to the monoliths that operate in that arena.

It is a government answer to a government created problem: monopolies. What should be done is to cut that out and allow for open markets and create competition. The owner of, say, and ISP who has invested and built their own infrastructure ought to be able to treat any packets that cross their network in any fashion they see fit, including blocking it or charging for high-bandwidth applications. With more competition, it would open up the door for consumers to have a single router that would work with multiple ISPs, for example.

In any case, a positive step forward. But more deregulation is needed here.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Good.

It's a shame Ajit Pai didn't stand up for his beliefs when the FCC wanted to regulate the internet back in 2015.

 

[Starman]

Good.

It's a shame Ajit Pai didn't stand up for his beliefs when the FCC wanted to regulate the internet back in 2015.

He's had a foot on both the government and commercial sides of this. He just wants to be sure his bread is buttered no matter what the outcome was.

 

[GURPS]

7 Reasons Net Neutrality Is Idiotic




this does a good JOB Explain the History of things

 

[Lurk]

Is it just a just a happy coincidence that pages are loading slower than usual this past 4 or 5 days?

 

[GURPS]

Why Ajit Pai's decision killing Obama's net neutrality FCC regulation is good


So, let’s look at the merits. Net neutrality is, generally, good in principle, for it lays down the law that the networks over which we get information should not discriminate between one type of information and another. For example, it would be wrong if AT&T prevented its Internet customers from searching for prices charged by other cellphone providers. You wouldn’t want Comcast blocking access to articles complaining about its customer service.

But a general principle of that sort is often best not codified in a written regulation.

One reason is that the market will take care of wrongdoers. Comcast would lose Internet customers if, for example, it only allowed those customers to see MSNBC (Comcast’s sister company) for news.

Net neutrality regulation also effectively outlaws competing business models, which are good for customers and the economy as a whole. Competing business models allow experimentation, and this leads to providers serving customers better by meeting their needs more precisely.

Consider the possibility of Internet “fast lanes.” As telemedicine becomes an increasingly important part of healthcare, wouldn’t you want your surgeon to be able to buy access to an express lane in which a network was allowed to grant privilege to certain data over others? That is, AT&T should be allowed to provide a service in which data bytes flowing between an operating room and a surgeon to take precedence over bytes of 100 dudes Googling to find out whether Jennifer Lawrence is married.

Maybe consumers will prefer neutrality. But guess what? If they do, many network providers will offer more neutral business models. Others will offer a tier-based model. Portugal has no net neutrality regulations, and mobile Internet providers mostly offer bundles, where you pay to have access to a bundle of online services.

 

[awpitt]

Why Ajit Pai's decision killing Obama's net neutrality FCC regulation is good


So, let’s look at the merits. Net neutrality is, generally, good in principle, for it lays down the law that the networks over which we get information should not discriminate between one type of information and another. For example, it would be wrong if AT&T prevented its Internet customers from searching for prices charged by other cellphone providers. You wouldn’t want Comcast blocking access to articles complaining about its customer service.

But a general principle of that sort is often best not codified in a written regulation.

One reason is that the market will take care of wrongdoers. Comcast would lose Internet customers if, for example, it only allowed those customers to see MSNBC (Comcast’s sister company) for news.

Net neutrality regulation also effectively outlaws competing business models, which are good for customers and the economy as a whole. Competing business models allow experimentation, and this leads to providers serving customers better by meeting their needs more precisely.

Consider the possibility of Internet “fast lanes.” As telemedicine becomes an increasingly important part of healthcare, wouldn’t you want your surgeon to be able to buy access to an express lane in which a network was allowed to grant privilege to certain data over others? That is, AT&T should be allowed to provide a service in which data bytes flowing between an operating room and a surgeon to take precedence over bytes of 100 dudes Googling to find out whether Jennifer Lawrence is married.

Maybe consumers will prefer neutrality. But guess what? If they do, many network providers will offer more neutral business models. Others will offer a tier-based model. Portugal has no net neutrality regulations, and mobile Internet providers mostly offer bundles, where you pay to have access to a bundle of online services.

The problem with this is that there really isn't much competition. No "market", as everyone preaches about. If Metrocast decides to cut off access to certain Websites, it's not as if I can go running to Comcast.

 

[Bushy23]

The problem with this is that there really isn't much competition. No "market", as everyone preaches about. If Metrocast decides to cut off access to certain Websites, it's not as if I can go running to Comcast.

Exactly! Shouldn't it concern people on this forum that Verizon and Comcast are trying to kill NN? I thought we were gonna drain the swamp...now a former Verizon guy is running the FCC and trying to kill NN.

 

[awpitt]

Exactly! Shouldn't it concern people on this forum that Verizon and Comcast are trying to kill NN? I thought we were gonna drain the swamp...now a former Verizon guy is running the FCC and trying to kill NN.

Yep. But that doesn't matter, to most members here, now that Trump is in. NN doesn't matter. Next, SMECO will get to decide which appliances we get to use at home.

 

[GURPS]

But that doesn't matter, to most members here, now that Trump is in. NN doesn't matter.

for my part this has NOTHING to do with Trump ....

but you go right on thinking reclassifying ISPs as Common Carriers like Telco is a GREAT Thing

 

[GURPS]

Remember the 1930s?
More ominously, numerous other regulations drafted in 1934, in the days of local telephone monopolies, could be applied to ISPs, such as limits on technology, price controls, and the like. Right now, the FCC’s “net neutrality” rules only are abstaining in this regard voluntarily, i.e., forbearance. But net neutrality rules would allow this regulatory overreach in principal.

By way of reminder, old-fashioned taxicabs are common carriers, but Uber started as a more limited access system. The unknown Uber of the future internet cannot come into existence under the net neutrality regime.

The old rules of common carriers typically involved a regulatory bargain. A limited number of cabs were permitted to operate—the limits vouchsafed by their pricey medallions—and in exchange, prices were set, and the providers were required to serve all comers on an equal basis. This limit on competition was more explicit in the case of expensive local networks with natural monopoly features, such as cable television, landline telephone, and the like.

But these natural monopolies, in spite of their monopoly protections, were often left behind by technological change. Landline use is down today due to the rise of cheap, mobile phone technology. Widespread high-speed internet access has cut into the typical “necessity” of cable television. And, as discussed above, the sharing economy has undermined the traditional market power of regulated industries like cabs, hotels, and others.

All of these disruptive technologies typically grew up not because of protective government regulation, but in spite of it. Indeed, and Uber is a perfect example, new services offered on a non-neutral basis often evolved to meet a need that was only partially and poorly met by a government regulated system.


https://amgreatness.com/2017/11/27/against-net-neutrality/

 

[awpitt]

for my part this has NOTHING to do with Trump ....

but you go right on thinking reclassifying ISPs as Common Carriers like Telco is a GREAT Thing

Okay? Show me the competition you people are talking about. The "market you're talking about?

There is none. We're not talking about grocery stores here where one can shop around among the competition.

As I said earlier, if Metrocast decides to censor which Website I can access, there are no other REAL options.

 

[Starman]

Okay? Show me the competition you people are talking about. The "market you're talking about?

There is none. We're not talking about grocery stores here where one can shop around among the competition.

As I said earlier, if Metrocast decides to censor which Website I can access, there are no other REAL options.

Lack of competition is *caused* by government intervention into this market -- government creates monopolies. This can be fixed by government: deregulate, stop creating monopolies, and allow competition to flourish. The fix is NOT Net Neutrality, which is just more government mucking about in the markets.

 

[Lurk]

When will people realize that the action of the FCC in 2015 was another example of extra-legislative power grab by Obama and his administration. After the SCOTUS slapped them on the wrist the first time they imposed "net neutrality" they did an administrative name change and imposed a solution to a problem that did not exist.

 

[GURPS]

As I said earlier, if Metrocast decides to censor which Website I can access, there are no other REAL options.

Are YOU really that paranoid ?

don't have a smart phone or access to a Hot Spot ?

No Internet access at work ?

you think NN is going to give you more choices, stop Google from filtering websites from search results ...

what exactly are you expecting Metrocast to filter ?
do they offer their own video streaming like YouTube or Netflix - do you expect them to throttle Netflix so you will watch more Cable TV.

ok so Verizon was caught 'optimizing video' that throttled YouTube and Netflix - what happened :shrug:
PUBLIC Scorn forced them to change ....


Everything You Need To Know About Why Net Neutrality Is A Terrible Idea

 

[LightRoasted]

If I may ...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ts-plan-to-rollback-its-net-neutrality-rules/ Net Neutrality is nothing more than a scheme by which companies can pass along part of their cost of doing business to the consumer (Want to watch lots of Netflix and other bandwidth-intensive things? Fork over the cash.) It was sold as "freedom" for broadband consumers, but it was nothing of the sort. It is a giveaway to the monoliths that operate in that arena. It is a government answer to a government created problem: monopolies. What should be done is to cut that out and allow for open markets and create competition. The owner of, say, and ISP who has invested and built their own infrastructure ought to be able to treat any packets that cross their network in any fashion they see fit, including blocking it or charging for high-bandwidth applications. With more competition, it would open up the door for consumers to have a single router that would work with multiple ISPs, for example.

In any case, a positive step forward. But more deregulation is needed here.

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered...." -Thomas Jefferson

 

[awpitt]

Are YOU really that paranoid ?

No.

don't have a smart phone or access to a Hot Spot ?

Yes but not a realistic nor affordable alternative the broad band I pay Metrocast for. It’s like comparing Weis Market to Wawa for grocery options.

No Internet access at work ?

Really? That can’t even be in the equation.

you think NN is going to give you more choices, stop Google from filtering websites from search results

If Google is altering searches, I can always use other search engines. Very bad comparison. NN isn’t about content providers. It’s about broadband providers.

 

[Sapidus]

How you could be an advocate for the government handing over the reins to allow private corporations to decide what the most important websites and information are is baffling.

especially for a group that always claims to stand for freedom. Tis is nothing but a cash grab by big corporations and to see people cheering it is beyond insane.

 

[GURPS]

AT&T’s Monopoly Offers A Cautionary Tale For Net Neutrality