legal Net Neutrality Has Been Repealed!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?

 

[Michael M]

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

I am not a "Trumper" - but no I am not referencing that Trump = Free Market.

I am saying America from it's founding was a Free Market.

And until we aren't anymore - we are.

 

[Dondomainer]

I am not a "Trumper" - but no I am not referencing that Trump = Free Market.

I am saying America from it's founding was a Free Market.

And until we aren't anymore - we are.

by the way, the free market is highly regulated in US. ..so..- I do not understand you

 

[Michael M]

by the way, the free market is highly regulated in US. ..so..- I do not understand you

It's been painfully obvious that you don't. I see no purpose in explaining the difference between common sense regulation and over-regulation - or how politics progress, or political corruption, or whatever else other alleys we could go down with this...

I believe I understand you. I understand the gist of your politics. I don't even attack them. I just don't agree with them,

 

[pokainc]

@Michael M
Man, did you already forget the crash of 2008?

You leave powerful corporation with ultimate power regarding MAJOR crucial resources (money, internet) and leave it to "100% open market" as you like, and you eventually get a firestorm.

Greed and Profits can't be the ONLY thing that counts. When you enter an industry that impacts billions, there has to be at least some minimal oversight. Being allowed to provide internet and have billions of data points is a privilege as it can go as far as affecting national security.

Just like gambling addicts can't be left in front of a slot machine or blackjack tables even if they say they'll control themselves, you can't leave huge Corporations with 0 oversight....

Also, please stop using the term politics..... has nothing to do with anything... it's opinions... someone from any party can have any type of business opinion.

 

[Michael M]

@Michael M
Man, did you already forget the crash of 2008?

You leave powerful corporation with ultimate power regarding MAJOR crucial resources (money, internet) and leave it to "100% open market" as you like, and you eventually get firestorm.

Greed and Profits can't be the ONLY thing that counts. When you enter an industry that impacts billions, there has to be at least some minimal oversight. Being allowed to provide internet and have billions of data points is a privilege as it can go as far as affecting national security.

Just like gambling addicts can't be left in front of a slot machine or blackjack tables even if they say they'll control themselves, you can't leave huge Corporations with 0 oversight....

Capitalism vs Socialism.

Freedom vs (over)Regulation

Great debates to have. But that should not be the topic of your concern about Netflix being throttled.

 

[Michael M]

To add: I believe in common sense regulation. I think I've said that a few times now.

Again - pass your bill - where it only does what you want it to - and I won't fight you.

Pass 400 pages of who knows what written by HUGE corporations which should scare you from your logic.... And I will oppose it.

 

[pokainc]

It is directly linked.

Stop obsessing only with Netflix and Google, etc...

If potential throttling and shutting down a website is allowed.. that can curtail free Speech, certain businesses' development and more.

Maybe they should have a mid-way point; if you're traffic surpasses I don't know how many million or billion gigs of bandwidth, then you would have to pay a premium.

But not widesweeping powers over everyone. A very high threshold has to be reached first.

 

[Michael M]

It is directly linked.

Stop obsessing only with Netflix and Google, etc...

If potential throttling and shutting down a website is allowed.. that can curtail free Speech, certain businesses' development and more.

It is in a sense - but this political automosphere is ripe for pushing agendas. I don't think anyone will disagree with me on that.

I have the personal belief your emotions had been played to pass something not in your interest.

So I oppose it. I opposed it two years ago before it was "law", and still oppose it now that it is gone.

Maybe they should have a mid-way point; if you're traffic surpasses I don't know how many million or billion gigs of bandwidth, then you would have to pay a premium.

But not widesweeping powers over everyone. A very high threshold has to be reached first.

See now we are talking how we should be on this subject. This whole thread should be about what your guys concerns are and how to address them appropriately and intelligently. Not emotionally.

 

[pokainc]

"I have the personal belief your emotions have been played to pass something not in your interest."

Not a kid. And I run my own business. Just that statement says that you think we're naive people who can't make up their minds without outside influence.. we don't know each other.. but trust me that isn't the case. That's just your condescending thinking.

"See now we are talking how we should be on this subject. This whole thread should be about what your guys concerns are and how to address them appropriately and intelligently. Not emotionally.".... So far I didn't see you suggest anything of the sort... You were "as emotional" since you want to put it that way about freedom of markets vs our thinking of a "logical freedom of markets".

 

[Michael M]

We are on page 11 now. I have said lots of things as I have lots of views on different things.

I tried to keep this subject narrow beyond the politics as much as I could, prior.

And I have my view - It is not personally you I am trying to protect - but the industry as a whole. You are included in that.
And I am not trying to treat you like a kid and tell you how to handle your business - That is what a regulation does.

 

[think]

To add: I believe in common sense regulation. I think I've said that a few times now.

Again - pass your bill - where it only does what you want it to - and I won't fight you.

Pass 400 pages of who knows what written by HUGE corporations which should scare you from your logic.... And I will oppose it.

The original Net Neutrality document is not some hidden item that is impossible to discern. The document had to be 313 pages long (87 pages were commissioners comments.) in order to stand up to the requirements of the courts. A one page document would never made it through a court challenge.

As noted before:

Here's a link to the entire text regarding Net Neutrality:

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0312/FCC-15-24A1.pdf


FWIW The FCC commissioners claim they needed to be detailed in writing this because they knew the issue would be taken to the courts and they had to make sure it was worded properly or the courts would overrule it as they had already done in the past.


For those who would prefer a well laid out synopsis of what NN did rather than reading the entire document here is a CNET.com article from 2015 that lays out the main points in the Net Neutrality document:

https://www.cnet.com/news/13-things-you-need-to-know-about-the-fccs-net-neutrality-regulation/

Also from the above article:

2. Why did it take 400 pages to say that?

Just to clarify, the actual order takes up 313 pages, and the remaining 87 pages are statements from the five FCC commissioners, including lengthy dissenting comments from two of those commissioners.

Beyond that, FCC officials say they needed to give detailed explanations of how and why they wrote these rules, because they expect the rules will be challenged in court. That's because the FCC's two previous attempts were thrown out of court for improper legal justification. AT&T and Comcast have already hinted they will sue the FCC over the rules and, in particular, their reclassification as broadband services.​

https://www.cnet.com/news/13-things-you-need-to-know-about-the-fccs-net-neutrality-regulation/​

 

[Michael M]

The original Net Neutrality document is not some hidden item that is impossible to discern. The document had to be 313 pages long (87 pages were commissioners comments.) in order to stand up to the requirements of the courts. A one page document would never made it through a court challenge.

As noted before:



Also from the above article:

2. Why did it take 400 pages to say that?

Just to clarify, the actual order takes up 313 pages, and the remaining 87 pages are statements from the five FCC commissioners, including lengthy dissenting comments from two of those commissioners.

Beyond that, FCC officials say they needed to give detailed explanations of how and why they wrote these rules, because they expect the rules will be challenged in court. That's because the FCC's two previous attempts were thrown out of court for improper legal justification. AT&T and Comcast have already hinted they will sue the FCC over the rules and, in particular, their reclassification as broadband services.​

https://www.cnet.com/news/13-things-you-need-to-know-about-the-fccs-net-neutrality-regulation/​

Why was the FCC so concerned with the courts striking it down? Hmmmmm....

 

[think]

Why was the FCC so concerned with the courts striking it down? Hmmmmm....

Because it had to be written correctly so as to define what the rules would actually do would be my guess....

 

[Michael M]

Because it had to be written correctly so as define what the rules would actually do would be my guess....

Mine would be that the FCC knew they were over-reaching... But we are both guessing. Who knows who is right. It is all so convoluted seems none of us know what we are debating.... Again hmmm....

(corrected for grammar)

 

[mr-x]

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 ?

This is absolutely, 100% false. Your scenario was illegal before NN and remains illegal after it's removal.

 

[mr-x]

We are on page 11 now. I have said lots of things as I have lots of views on different things.

I tried to keep this subject narrow beyond the politics as much as I could, prior.

And I have my view - It is not personally you I am trying to protect - but the industry as a whole. You are included in that.
And I am not trying to treat you like a kid and tell you how to handle your business - That is what a regulation does.

You're pissing into the wind at this point. Some people are just more interested in winning the argument than facts.

 

[Michael M]

You're pissing into the wind at this point. Some people are just more interested in winning the argument than facts.

If just one person just walks away for a minute and thinks about it - even if they don't change their opinion - I feel my effort would be worthwhile.

I fully understand with some there is no common ground and no chance for productive discussion.

 

[mr-x]

Interesting take from a ISP in Portland OR, cautious optimism.

"Booth predicted that if the doom and gloom scenario where ISPs charge customers more for Netflix or Hulu streaming comes to pass, Stephouse could benefit from an exodus of Comcast customers."

https://www.engadget.com/2017/12/13/net-neutrality-small-isp-reaction/

As wireless speeds improve, so will competitors. I think the big challenge is the available wireless radio spectrum.

 

[Romano]

It will stay in my country

 

[pokainc]

We are on page 11 now. I have said lots of things as I have lots of views on different things.

I tried to keep this subject narrow beyond the politics as much as I could, prior.

And I have my view - It is not personally you I am trying to protect - but the industry as a whole. You are included in that.
And I am not trying to treat you like a kid and tell you how to handle your business - That is what a regulation does.

Why do you even mention stupidities like "it is not you I am trying to protect" ... at no point did I imply you were, and secondly sure as hell would never ask.. so again.. it's the condescending platform you're talking off of... get off of it.

"Regulation does".... again... these generalized really ignorant FOX NEWS type of headlines...

Let's go in panic mode "REGULATIONS TELLS YOU HOW TO HANDLE YOUR BUSINESS".

- CRASH OF 2008
- BANKING SECTOR PROBLEMS
- CORRUPTION SCANDALS

But you're right, 0 regulation is the way to go. While we're at it, F*** it, let's get rid of judges, lawyers, laws, regulations. Who needs them, let humans use their innate goodness with no minimal oversight, live like cowboys, settle things with duels.

Such backwards thinking. MAJOR REGULATION HURTS BUSINESS, MINIMAL LOGICAL REGULATION CREATES A CLIMATE OF INCREASED PROSPERITY AS BUSINESSES CAN THRIVE AND IT PREVENTS MONOPOLIES.

Pointless to discuss anything in this thread anymore... the word MODERATION seems to not be in your vocabulary.

Such minimalistic thinking....

Regulation = BAD
No Regulation = GOOD

Tarzan HAPPY

 

[mr-x]

Regulation = BAD
No Regulation = GOOD

Tarzan HAPPY

As long as Tarzan is happy, we're happy.

 

[pokainc]

hahahaa, well for sure, have you seen Jane ? plus no competition haha

 

[Dondomainer]

I just think

Why a consumer would like to take the risk that their ISP do the right thing or not.

Why a company must have so much legal margin to do or not what is right.

Why a consumer puts his own interest, below the corporate interests.

you have the answer ?

 

[Silentptnr]

I just cant decide if internet access is so important that it should be a "utility" status like phone service, or if it should be unregulated.

Just seems that it is almost like a utility.

 

[eyedomainous]

^ In the information age access to information is a utility...
just as electricity became a utility in the age of electricity.

When 'everything runs on it'... IT became a utility.