legal Net Neutrality Has Been Repealed!

[DaveX]

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?

 

[anantj]

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

Why were they punished? Under what law or regulation?

 

[mr-x]

no this is not an analogy. This was an actual occurence. You're being obtusely blind to an actual event is stupid.

Comparing an accident that disrupted service for millions to NN reversal is stupid. This was not an accident and service hasn't been disrupted. So we'll just disagree.

 

[anantj]

Comparing an accident that disrupted service to millions is stupid. This was not an accident and no-one service has been disrupted. So we'll just disagree.

Why don't you re-read the sub-thread this example was for? You asked for a relevant example and I gave one. This was a factual and a real incident that happened and one which you dismissed as never having happened. Having been proven wrong, you're now just dismissing it as stupid when it was exactly and completely relevant to your original "argument".

 

[mr-x]

Why were they punished? Under what law or regulation?

Not sure where you live, but in the USA, rules agreed to by committee at the FCC, FTC are are based on the laws passed by congress.

NN was a reclassification of ISP's to phone companies with added rules. The current administration disagreed and changed the classification back to data carriers... which they are.

 

[anantj]

Not sure where you live, but in the USA, rules agreed to by committee at the FCC, FTC are are based on the laws passed by congress.

NN was a reclassification of ISP's to phone companies with added rules. The current administration disagreed and changed the classification back to data carriers... which they are.

Precisely. NN was also a set of regulations that was under the rules/laws at the time. The regulations have been repealed as they are inconvenient or disagreeable to the current politicians in control of the house. But the point again is that Net Neutrality prevented the exact occurrence that happened with AT&T's misbehaviour. Something that they can now indulge in again without any fear of punishment

 

[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.

 

[Optimal Names]

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.

 

[Optimal Names]

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 ?