IT.COM

legal Net Neutrality Has Been Repealed!

Spaceship Spaceship
Watch

Silentptnr

Domains88.comTop Member
Impact
47,110
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?
 
7
•••
The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
Hoping this won't slow down the PornHub
:-$
 
2
•••
Corporations don't typically censor. Governments do.
You are deluding yourself if you believe so. One example of "corporate" censorship - Apple does not allow most adult content on their app store. Instagram does not allow any form of nudity (even artistic) on their platform. Facebook does not allow any generic statement against "men" such as "all men are scum". All of these examples are private corporate "censorship"
 
2
•••
I think I now have a more nuanced understanding of your objections in regard to this specific regulation.

But I also sensed a more fundamental opposition in regards to regulation, which is what I am making a counter stance to.

I also understand your disgust of politics. Its hard to feel otherwise with the politicians we have today.
 
2
•••
Major internet providers slowing traffic speeds for thousands across US
Study finds significant degradations of networks for five largest ISPs, including AT&T and Time Warner, representing 75% of all wireline households in US

Sam Thielman in New York
Monday 22 June 2015 10.58 EDT

Major internet providers, including AT&T, Time Warner and Verizon, are slowing data from popular websites to thousands of US businesses and residential customers in dozens of cities across the country, according to a study released on Monday.

The study, conducted by internet activists BattlefortheNet, looked at the results from 300,000 internet users and found significant degradations on the networks of the five largest internet service providers (ISPs), representing 75% of all wireline households across the US.

The findings come weeks after the Federal Communications Commission introduced new rules meant to protect “net neutrality” – the principle that all data is equal online – and keep ISPs from holding traffic speeds for ransom....

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jun/22/major-internet-providers-slowing-traffic-speeds




Verizon caught throttling Netflix traffic even after its pays for more bandwidth
Joel Hruska on July 20, 2014 at 7:08 am
https://www.extremetech.com/computi...raffic-even-after-its-pays-for-more-bandwidth




4 bad things Internet companies can't do anymore -- if the FCC gets its way
by Jose Pagliery @Jose_PaglieryFebruary 5, 2015: 2:01 PM ET

http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/05/technology/fcc-net-neutrality-cases/index.html



Currently the US ranks 46th in average internet speeds right behind
Yes, I noticed first thing this morning that one of my favorite reads has changed to charging for full articles. At first this morning, unusually, the site was showing yesterdays news. When the site finally updated, many of the articles are only previews now. By the way, its WashingtonPost.com.

WaPo is Amazon....
I wonder how many of these thought leaders supported the U.S. Government transfering the management of the domain name system to ICANN ?
 
2
•••
Guys, the so called "Net Neutrality" regulations that the FCC repealed have only been in place for 2 years. What was the internet like at the end of 2015? That is all it is.

I for one am happy to see any government (in this case the US government) stay the heck out of everything in business.

To say you want the govt to regulate the ISP's instead of the market doing so, is saying that you are okay with the govt regulating your holding or selling your domain names. Is holding on and not selling your name to someone at their low-ball offer price the same thing as throttling? Wow we better get the FCC to make a regulation to that effect and force the movement of names to people that are not willing to pay true valuation of that name. (SARCASM intended)

It is not the end of the world. The capitalistic marketplace will sort things out, just as it did in the creation of what we have had and continue to have in what we know as the internet.

Everybody needs to pop a xanax, valuim or a fifth of vodka and relax. (y)
 
2
•••
I just found this, via twitter

" In Portugal, with no net neutrality, internet providers are starting to split the net into packages. "
URL : https://www.meo.pt/internet/internet-movel/telemovel/pacotes-com-telemovel

Screenshot_1.png
 
Last edited:
2
•••
I am 100% certain that as of yesterday my internet speed slowed dramatically. I actually had to reset my connection and finally got it moving but it definitely was slowed from the provider level.

Not sure whats actually happening.

The vote was was made, but implementation is months in the making. I truly think that whatever happened is not a result of the FCC vote.

This problem is much more complicated than the old thinking of whether the government should or should not legislate.

I could not disagree with you more. The LESS government interference there is, the better for ANY business. I am 59 and I remember as a teen and early 20's the aviation industry was VERY highly regulated. The Govt determined to which city a carrier could fly, costs for tickets were high, because the govt regulated prices. When the airlines were deregulated there were cries of fear that the airlines could charge whatever they wanted, and the airlines would only fly to big cities, and on and on and on. Then the capital markets took over and a company called People Express Airline was formed in 1980 becoming the first major "Low Cost" carrier. The cut fares drastically, started flying to secondary airports, made flight costs affordable to the average traveler. They made up for the lower ticket prices with high service and filled planes. Thus more low cost airlines were formed and the major carriers were forced by mere market conditions to lower fares and serve airports that were more convenient to customers.

Many of those carriers that did not adjust are now non-existent; TWA, Eastern, National. The market of capitalism kicked in, as it always does in a vacuum, and creates solutions that are impossible to be created under the burden of bureaucratic regulation.

One example of over regulation today that would be fixed by deregulation in my own county (Lee County Florida) The State of Florida has government agency that has to approve any new hospital rooms in the state. If a hospital is overcrowded and wants to convert a sitting area into more rooms, it can not unless approved to add the beds (Then they have to get the building permit approvals, etc) Our county has 4 hospitals which are constantly overcrowded. Enough so, that earlier this year my father-in-law had to be kept on a stretcher in the halls of the Emergency Room for 72 hours until a room opened for him to be admitted (and they have 349 beds) This is a constant problem with our local hospitals.

The hospital company wanted to build a new hospital in an area of the county that was without a hospital, in order to relieve the over crowding. The regulators in the state capital said that there was not a need for new beds and rejected the proposal. This is a case where patient care is being throttled by regulators and could be blown wide open by the free market.

And by the way a huge part of the US Military is privatized and has been since the Revolutionary War.

The Creeping Privatization of America's Armed Forces - Newsweek
www.newsweek.com/creeping-privatization-americas-forces-616347
May 28, 2017 - We have used military contractors in every major conflict since the American Revolution. ... In other words, about half of our armed forces is outsourced to private military contractors.
 
2
•••
see my previous post, an example of an internet without regulation.

See my previous post regarding my previous post. :xf.smile: The market in Portugal or in most of Europe is not as free market based as is the United States
 
2
•••
@gipson I am heading to bed now. We might pick this up again tomorrow. But please look at my illustrations of airlines and hospitals
 
2
•••
I for one am happy to see any government (in this case the US government) stay the heck out of everything in business.
To say you want the govt to regulate the ISP's instead of the market doing so, is saying that you are okay with the govt regulating your holding or selling your domain names.
The market won't be regulating ISPs, whatcha talkin' bout Willis? Unless, of course, you consider a board of directors run by wealthy shareholders "the market".
 
2
•••
No. Your argument is a red herring. Neither you, nor I have read the regulations in full. And so you cannot state factually that the regulations are incorrect or bad. It is your belief but one that is not based on fact.

And how is it even a thought experiment? If you make such random connections, then I can easily say that if North Korea is not allowed the freedom to develop their own Nuclear weapons, then the government will shut down the Internet in entirety. I mean, there is absolutely no logical connection between the two but I am free to call this a thought experiment.
Sure... You are.

It comes down to people reading what you write, and rather or not it makes sense to them.

It makes no sense to you. That is fine. It is obvious how you feel and how I feel about this subject. So obviously I am not really trying to get you to think outside of your box. I would if I could - but we both know I can't.

I am open to you convincing me of the need for a regulation - if you can go beyond the main talking point. If it is the main talking point you seek then even though I oppose it - I can live with it. But it doesn't take complete regulation of an industry to accomplish one end goal. A single page (or how about 5-10 even?) of legislation can do it. Then we both can read it easily and know exactly what is being regulated. Then both of us are happy. So lets do that - or stop arguing about THIS regulation being struck down. Because still you can not say in any capacity why this regulation has to be so bloated and unreadable.

You are about the name - and the talking point.
 
2
•••
To summarize, you do not see a problem in which companies have the power to manipulate or restrict you access to the Internet if they wish. you give him the benefit of the doubt of doing it or not, in any case, you not see a problem that there are no regulations that protect you.

that is your position?
I personally don't need to be protected in every scenario of life - but different people have different political views.

I can understand people's motivations behind wanting protection, and understand I live in a world with many other people and many other opinions and concerns. That means sometimes I have to live under laws or regulations that I don't believe in.

The reason I am vocal now - is because I have spent my entire career on the Internet. I have watched it grow and become what it is without 400 pages of regulation. So yes, it concerns me when the FCC wants to step in and regulate it with unknown consequences.

If you just want nothing to be throttled and the Net "Neutral" - I don't agree, wouldn't vote for it, but wouldn't say much... Have Congress or the FCC write that down in a few pages, pass it, and I will likely keep my mouth shut.

But obviously that isn't the point of any of my post here. You can try to paint me in a corner all you want, but I believe my position in pretty clear.
 
2
•••
If you are going to govern safety over every imaginable circumstance - then by definition it is political.
No it is not. What definition are you quoting here? Safety is a basic human need (and expectation in a civilized society). I have absolutely no idea what definition you are using to state that the need for safety is political
 
2
•••
I live in florida for 10 years now bro.
My apologies. That was not directed straight at you even though it was in reply to your post.

There are people also posting on here not from the US and I can see where there would be a misunderstanding between types of policies in different parts of the world.

But - none-the-less - I meant no offense to you or anyone by it.
 
2
•••
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/
 
2
•••
2
•••
... marketplace will sort things out, just as it did in the creation of what we have had and continue to have in what we know as the internet.

Exactly, as the hardware and software running the network improves, new opportunities will arise.

A few years from now we could have a better decentralized network where wired access is mostly backup service and multiple carriers compete for your attention.
 
2
•••
The issue is very sensitive and the stakes are huge because Internet access has become a vital need for most people and is not a luxury. It is not an ordinary commodity that you can do without. It is even considered a basic human right.
There is a reason why there was talks of turning some Internet companies like Microsoft into utility status. It is testimony to their importance. Let me emphasize: Internet access is not an ordinary commercial service. It is almost like gas and water.

I am for healthy competition, but also for a level playing field. The above example of Verisign is very appropriate. Imagine if .com was run like .tv, in the absence of regulations and with little predictability.
 
2
•••
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.
 
Last edited:
2
•••
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.
 
2
•••
2
•••
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
 
Last edited:
2
•••
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.
 
2
•••
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.
 
2
•••
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?
 
2
•••
  • The sidebar remains visible by scrolling at a speed relative to the page’s height.
Back