legal Net Neutrality Has Been Repealed!

[Silentptnr]

I just read that...

F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules
WASHINGTON — The Federal Communications Commission voted on Thursday to dismantle rules regulating the businesses that connect consumers to the internet, granting broadband companies the power to potentially reshape Americans’ online experiences.

The agency scrapped the so-called net neutrality regulations that prohibited broadband providers from blocking websites or charging for higher-quality service or certain content. The federal government will also no longer regulate high-speed internet delivery as if it were a utility, like phone service.

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

How will this change things?

 

[mr-x]

... And throttling specific apps or content *was* illegal and is not with the repeal of NN

AT&T were fined because they lied about unlimited data plans. That was illegal before NN and is still illegal.

AT&T fined $100 million for misleading customers about 'unlimited' data plans
http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/17/technology/att-unlimited-dat-plan/index.html

 

[anantj]

AT&T were fined because they lied about unlimited data plans. That was illegal before NN and is still illegal.

AT&T fined $100 million for misleading customers about 'unlimited' data plans
http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/17/technology/att-unlimited-dat-plan/index.html

Uhm, your earlier quote was:

When it was proven that AT&T throttled service, they were punished, correct?

Your own comment stated that (relevant to the comment above) was that AT&T was punished for throttling service. Not sure why you're now bringing in a different issue of lying about their plans!

 

[mr-x]

Uhm, your earlier quote was:



Your own comment stated that (relevant to the comment above) was that AT&T was punished for throttling service. Not sure why you're now bringing in a different issue of lying about their plans!

Yes... when they throttled an unlimited plan as a regular practice, it was deceiving the customer. Hence' Ajit's statement, if they tell the consumer the plan may be throttled it wouldn't be a violation.

BUT

Giving preference in an anti-competitive manor, i.e. giving free access to HULU but blocking or throttling Netflix.

Probably the worse thing you could do.. so yeah still illegal.

 

[ResoluteDomains]

I have Google Fiber 500 meters from my house, but it does not arrive yet.

I have Google Fiber in my city too - but only the poorest areas of the city are getting Google Fiber.

 

[ResoluteDomains]

Amazing speed. I get a fraction of a fraction of that!

 

[eyedomainous]

Nothing prevents any local government from providing Internet service as a utility to their citizens.

One of the main reasons Net Neutrality was passed two years ago was ISPs were making it virtually illegal for local governments to provide internet service for citizens... in HALF of the country!

The sad, but true, irony is virtually all of those states are 'Red' / Trump states, where many Republican voters are now applauding the repeal of Net Neutrality rules that just nullified those protections... so the old ISP driven State policies blocking municipal, or virtually any other competition, now go back into force.

[2014 / Before Net Neutrality]
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...-won-limits-on-public-broadband-in-20-states/

https://arstechnica.com/information...-internet-will-be-invalidated-fcc-chair-says/

https://gigaom.com/2015/02/26/fcc-votes-3-2-to-override-state-bans-of-city-broadband/

[NOW. AGAIN.]
MUNICIPAL BROADBAND ROADBLOCKS
25 State Laws that Protect Corporate Interests and Impede Competition
34 million Americans don’t have access to broadband Internet. In fact, 62 percent of those who can get broadband only have one provider to “choose” from. This means that, for the majority of the US, our only option is to pay up… or go without.
https://broadbandnow.com/report/municipal-broadband-roadblocks-by-state/

ISPs won’t promise to treat all traffic equally after net neutrality
https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/15...ns-without-net-neutrality-comcast-att-verizon

Meanwhile, a $15K citizen campaign FOR municipal broadband just beat a Million $ ISP attempt to kill it!
http://fortune.com/2017/12/10/municipal-broadband-fort-collins-colorado/

 

[anantj]

Giving preference in an anti-competitive manor, i.e. giving free access to HULU but blocking or throttling Netflix.

Probably the worse thing you could do.. so yeah still illegal.

No. It is NOT illegal anymore and that's exactly the point we're trying to make. With the repeal of the NN laws, ISPs are free to to exactly this.

 

[mr-x]

No. It is NOT illegal anymore and that's exactly the point we're trying to make. With the repeal of the NN laws, ISPs are free to to exactly this.

No, you're misinformed. I won't argue the point further b/c I've already posted a link to video debate about this.

 

[mr-x]

Don't get your information from talk show host or politicians with an agenda.

Congress passed the first antitrust law, the Sherman Act, in 1890 as a "comprehensive charter of economic liberty aimed at preserving free and unfettered competition as the rule of trade." In 1914, Congress passed two additional antitrust laws: the Federal Trade Commission Act, which created the FTC, and the Clayton Act. With some revisions, these are the three core federal antitrust laws still in effect today.

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/antitrust-laws

 

[JB Lions]

Don't get your information from talk show host or democrats with an agenda.

Get it from cable companies, ISPS, they have no agenda, haha.

 

[mr-x]

Get it from cable companies, ISPS, they have no agenda, haha.

Or actual lawyers and the law. I think people are more invested in winning an argument than facts at this point.

 

[anantj]

Or actual lawyers and the law. I think people are more invested in winning an argument than facts at this point.

Your comments make me feel you're doing the same. Random comments about unrelated issues, patently ignoring proof and facts when presented with them and making non-factual statements make me believe you're simply living in your own echo chamber convinced that whatever anyone else is saying (who does not agree with you) is merely arguing for the sake of arguing and are completely wrong.

 

[mr-x]

Your comments make me feel you're doing the same. Random comments about unrelated issues, patently ignoring proof and facts when presented with them and making non-factual statements make me believe you're simply living in your own echo chamber convinced that whatever anyone else is saying (who does not agree with you) is merely arguing for the sake of arguing and are completely wrong.

Let's agree to disagree.

 

[NamesMax]

It amazes me that many on this thread are arguing for the government to regulate business more and more, which is against their own interests. If the government regulates one business then they can reegulate other business.

Today cable companies and ISPs....Tomorrow domain registrars and hosting companies...The next day domain owners and investors.

Remember, the US Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that it was permissible to take a property, under eminent domain, from an owner, just because the government could get more tax revenue from the person that wanted to have the land instead of the current owner that did not want to sell. Kelo vs the city of New London, CT (link)

Think of this same argument in the domain world. back in 2009 Rick Swartz sold Candy.com for $3 Million plus other considerations. What if the buyer was frustrated at when Rick would not sell at $2 million and ran to the government for help. The government realizes that they are not getting any tax revenue from it sitting idle in Rick's portfolio, So it uses the "Kelo" decision to justify grabbing the name and moving it to the new owner so that they could get the tax revenue from the sale of candy on the site. Same principle being used.

A government that has the right and ability to interfere in one part of the internet structure from one business has the right and ability to interfere in all parts of the internet structure. Government regulators love to grab more and more and more control over everything they have their hands in. When is the last time you remember a government agency saying, "let's give up this power" we don't need it anymore? The recent FCC vote is one of the few I can recall.

 

[Dondomainer]

It amazes me that many on this thread are arguing for the government to regulate business more and more, which is against their own interests. If the government regulates one business then they can reegulate other business.

Today cable companies and ISPs....Tomorrow domain registrars and hosting companies...The next day domain owners and investors.

Remember, the US Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that it was permissible to take a property, under eminent domain, from an owner, just because the government could get more tax revenue from the person that wanted to have the land instead of the current owner that did not want to sell. Kelo vs the city of New London, CT (link)

Think of this same argument in the domain world. back in 2009 Rick Swartz sold Candy.com for $3 Million plus other considerations. What if the buyer was frustrated at when Rick would not sell at $2 million and ran to the government for help. The government realizes that they are not getting any tax revenue from it sitting idle in Rick's portfolio, So it uses the "Kelo" decision to justify grabbing the name and moving it to the new owner so that they could get the tax revenue from the sale of candy on the site. Same principle being used.

A government that has the right and ability to interfere in one part of the internet structure from one business has the right and ability to interfere in all parts of the internet structure. Government regulators love to grab more and more and more control over everything they have their hands in. When is the last time you remember a government agency saying, "let's give up this power" we don't need it anymore? The recent FCC vote is one of the few I can recall.

the door is open for things like this :

ISPs slow down all new business website asking for money, only the big platforms like amazon, .wix have preferential treatment. so how many new companies want pay for this ?....- Next say goodbye to the domain business

so tell me again, we dont need regulation ?

 

[Michael M]

the door is open for things like this :

ISPs slow down all new business website asking for money, only the big platforms like amazon, .wix have preferential treatment. so how many new companies want pay for this ?....- Next say goodbye to the domain business

so tell me again, we dont need regulation ?

We don't need 400 pages of regulation on the Internet Industry.

You asked, and received!

But on a serious note - I'd say the big guys would be in more danger of being throttled that any upcoming business that does not even have a domain yet. But that's just me looking at 1+1=2. I understand math can work differently these days.

 

[Michael M]

If GM were to compose Automotive Neutrality Regulation - do you think it would favor the new car company?
If Starbucks were to compose Coffee Neutrality Regulation - do you think it would favor the new coffee company?
If McDonalds were to compose FastFood Neutrality Regulation - do you think it would favor a new fast food company?

So why do you trust Google and Amazon to write regulation that would favor the new and upcoming internet company?

 

[pokainc]

We don't need 400 pages of regulation on the Internet Industry.

You asked, and received!

But on a serious note - I'd say the big guys would be in more danger of being throttled that any upcoming business that does not even have a domain yet. But that's just me looking at 1+1=2. I understand math can work differently these days.

Just to bust your b***s buddy, 1+1=2 , but if you add the time factor, that's not always the case

Also I don't trust the big companies what-so-ever, but in this case their interest (afraid of getting throttled) coincides with the interest of many smaller companies and anti-censorship advocates.

 

[Michael M]

Just to bust your b***s buddy, 1+1=2 , but if you add the time factor, that's not always the case

But that formula is 1+1+T=V... Different equation. The math has stayed constant.

 

[pokainc]

But that formula is 1+1+T=V... Different equation. The math has stayed constant.

Had some advanced math courses back in the day.. never had the "T" introduced in the equations I had seen.. guess there's something to learn everyday.

I guess T & A means Time and Acceleration

 

[Michael M]

I personally assigned T as the time value. I believe that is allowed. I did not know I was supposed to pull out textbook variables to respond to that.

I never thought of T & A as Time and Acceleration - but I must admit T & A does seem to speed up time!

 

[Dondomainer]

I personally assigned T as the time value. I believe that is allowed. I did not know I was supposed to pull out textbook variables to respond to that.

I never thought of T & A as Time and Acceleration - but I must admit T & A does seem to speed up time!

Why we don't need 400 pages of regulation on the Internet Industry ?

Maybe because companies can not take advantage, because suddenly without regulations, companies give up to earn trillions, why we don't need 400 pages of regulation on the Internet Industry ?

not taking advantage of non-regulation is bad business, knowing today the traffic that produce sites Facebook, Google, Youtube, etc etc.

I do not understand your ingenuity.

Capitalism without consumer protection, is to go back 50 years, just because companies want to squeeze anything before moving on to something cheaper or new,

example : Comcast VS Google Fiber

do you think Comcast does not have the technology to offer more speeds for the same price ? ,. K'mo

 

[Dondomainer]

Today the interner providers have nothing more to offer that speed, but they have seen many billionaire businesses grow from his terminals they know, that they are the door between the two sides, that's why they need to look for a new product and the product today is the same internet, fragmented, packaged, only because if there is no regulation, then it is normal that they want to do it.

 

[Michael M]

Why we don't need 400 pages of regulation on the Internet Industry ?

Maybe because companies can not take advantage, because suddenly without regulations, companies give up to earn trillions, why we don't need 400 pages of regulation on the Internet Industry ?

not taking advantage of non-regulation is bad business, knowing today the traffic that produce sites Facebook, Google, Youtube, etc etc.

I do not understand your ingenuity.

Capitalism without consumer protection, is to go back 50 years, just because companies want to squeeze anything before moving on to something cheaper or new,

example : Comcast VS Google Fiber

do you think Comcast does not have the technology to offer more speeds for the same price ? ,. K'mo

Comcast has the right to to make a profit and decide how their network is utilized. We do still currently at this moment live under (sort of) a Free Market.

They built their company, they installed the pipeline, they provide the manpower to maintain and support the network, and they should be able to make their own business decisions.

If they make bad decisions - the free market will topple them - and someone new will come to offer what they wont.

But that is getting into governmental systems and debates on which is better. The climate is too vitriolic and the atmosphere is too cloudy for us to debate it in this light. That's why I think this is even a debate right now. It is politics and about moving in a direction with no step back. It was a perfect time to enact it a couple of years ago (and I guess repeal it now) - since we can't debate it in a productive manner without getting bogged down in personal beliefs on how government and corporations should operate.

No one can win the which "politics is better" argument on either side.

Either way this bill was written by the Internet Giants, named something that makes people feel comfortable, and regulated in as 400 pages of who knows what.

It is now gone. Finished. Done. And we are all better for it.

We can come back here and argue to our hearts content when the next administration brings something similar back.

Until then we can wait and see if your fears come true - I am willing to bet they dont. The internet worked just fine before it (was not around long) and that is how the internet and innovation actually thrived. More innovation happened without it existing - than with it. Google and Amazon happened without it. Would they have happened with it? No one knows.

 

[Dondomainer]

Comcast has the right to to make a profit and decide how their network is utilized. We do still currently at this moment live under (sort of) a Free Market.

They built their company, they installed the pipeline, they provide the manpower to maintain and support the network, and they should be able to make their own business decisions.

If they make bad decisions - the free market will topple them - and someone new will come to offer what they wont.

But that is getting into governmental systems and debates on which is better. The climate is too vitriolic and the atmosphere is too cloudy for us to debate it in this light. That's why I think this is even a debate right now. It is politics and about moving in a direction with no step back. It was a perfect time to enact it a couple of years ago (and I guess repeal it now) - since we can't debate it in a productive manner without getting bogged down in personal beliefs on how government and corporations should operate.

No one can win the which "politics is better" argument on either side.

Either way this bill was written by the Internet Giants, named something that makes people feel comfortable, and regulated in as 400 pages of who knows what.

It is now gone. Finished. Done. And we are all better for it.

We can come back here and argue to our hearts content when the next administration brings something similar back.

Until then we can wait and see if your fears come true - I am willing to bet they dont. The internet worked just fine before it (was not around long) and that is how the internet and innovation actually thrived. More innovation happened without it existing - than with it. Google and Amazon happened without it. Would they have happened with it? No one knows.

Free market whit Trump ?..- it's a joke right.