Net neutrality repealed

[Anonymous]

There is a lot of dumb in the world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is a lot of dumb in the world.

A lot seems to be concentrated in the US these days, and a high proportion of those people seem to be on DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ajit Pai is going to be a super star in republican politics.

Good for carriers and small internet firms.

It is good for ISPs

It is bad for literally everyone else.

Consider this, the internet was essentially built by our tax dollars and now the citizens who paid for it are going to get gauged by the large, private companies.

As a consumer, what specifically will be bad for me? Not looking for what-ifs or maybes or "they could..". What specifically is bad?

Internet connectivity: speed, ease of use, access. You will pay more to get less. (And/or you will pay much more to keep what you currently have.) A classic depiction of Republicans in action -- corporations over people, every time.

The bolded statement is not a fact. That is speculation. I'm not sure what that speculation is based on other than fear, but I would love to know. If there is nothing to support your claim that prices will go up and speeds will go down then please let me know. I'm happy to change my mind if there is something more than opinions, speculations and fear driving these concerns. That didn't exist before net neutrality so not sure why you think it will exist now. My prices didn't go down when net neutrality came around. In fact, they have increased.

Yes, of course it's "speculation," presumed Trump-voter. How would a projection of a future outcome ever be a fact? In any case, be on the look out, over the next 12-18 mos. (and beyond), for an exciting array of new-and-improved service offerings from telcos offering you the fast, efficient Internet access you and yours need for just a "little" more!!!

Corporations 1, People 0. The GOP in action.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s difficult to match that mundane reality to the apocalyptic rhetoric that we’ve heard from Title II supporters. And as the debate has gone on, their claims have gotten more and more outlandish. So let’s be clear. Returning to the legal framework that governed the Internet from President Clinton’s pronouncement in 1996 until 2015 is not going to destroy the Internet. It is not going to end the Internet as we know it. It is not going to kill democracy. It is not going to stifle free expression online. If stating these propositions alone doesn’t demonstrate their absurdity, our Internet experience before 2015, and our experience tomorrow, once this order passes, will prove them so.

Simply put, by returning to the light-touch Title I framework, we are helping consumers and promoting competition. Broadband providers will have stronger incentives to build networks, especially in unserved areas, and to upgrade networks to gigabit speeds and 5G. This means there will be more competition among broadband providers. It also means more ways that startups and tech giants alike can deliver applications and content to more users. In short, it’s a freer and more open Internet.

Ajit is that you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s difficult to match that mundane reality to the apocalyptic rhetoric that we’ve heard from Title II supporters. And as the debate has gone on, their claims have gotten more and more outlandish. So let’s be clear. Returning to the legal framework that governed the Internet from President Clinton’s pronouncement in 1996 until 2015 is not going to destroy the Internet. It is not going to end the Internet as we know it. It is not going to kill democracy. It is not going to stifle free expression online. If stating these propositions alone doesn’t demonstrate their absurdity, our Internet experience before 2015, and our experience tomorrow, once this order passes, will prove them so.

Simply put, by returning to the light-touch Title I framework, we are helping consumers and promoting competition. Broadband providers will have stronger incentives to build networks, especially in unserved areas, and to upgrade networks to gigabit speeds and 5G. This means there will be more competition among broadband providers. It also means more ways that startups and tech giants alike can deliver applications and content to more users. In short, it’s a freer and more open Internet.

"Broadband providers will have stronger incentives to build networks, especially in unserved areas, and to upgrade networks to gigabit speeds and 5G."

Why? In plain terms, what will those incentives be? Not disagreeing with you, merely want to understand your point. Please hold forth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a lot of dumb in the world.

A lot seems to be concentrated in the US these days, and a high proportion of those people seem to be on DCUM.

Then why are you here arguing with rubes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s difficult to match that mundane reality to the apocalyptic rhetoric that we’ve heard from Title II supporters. And as the debate has gone on, their claims have gotten more and more outlandish. So let’s be clear. Returning to the legal framework that governed the Internet from President Clinton’s pronouncement in 1996 until 2015 is not going to destroy the Internet. It is not going to end the Internet as we know it. It is not going to kill democracy. It is not going to stifle free expression online. If stating these propositions alone doesn’t demonstrate their absurdity, our Internet experience before 2015, and our experience tomorrow, once this order passes, will prove them so.

Simply put, by returning to the light-touch Title I framework, we are helping consumers and promoting competition. Broadband providers will have stronger incentives to build networks, especially in unserved areas, and to upgrade networks to gigabit speeds and 5G. This means there will be more competition among broadband providers. It also means more ways that startups and tech giants alike can deliver applications and content to more users. In short, it’s a freer and more open Internet.

Ajit is that you?

Yes, the cheesy "light touch" is a dead give away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ajit Pai is going to be a super star in republican politics.

Good for carriers and small internet firms.

It is good for ISPs

It is bad for literally everyone else.

Consider this, the internet was essentially built by our tax dollars and now the citizens who paid for it are going to get gauged by the large, private companies.

As a consumer, what specifically will be bad for me? Not looking for what-ifs or maybes or "they could..". What specifically is bad?

Well, just look at countries like Mexico where provider charge extras for a "social media package" or certain app packages. So you pay more, at the ISP level, for social media access or access certain webpages. Do I think the market will go this way? No, but it could. Also, probably no more free porn and sports streaming.

[Anonymous]

The framework adopted by the Commission today will protect consumers at far less cost to investment than the prior rigid and wide-ranging utility rules. And restoring a favorable climate for network investment is key to closing the digital divide, spurring competition and innovation that benefits consumers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The framework adopted by the Commission today will protect consumers at far less cost to investment than the prior rigid and wide-ranging utility rules. And restoring a favorable climate for network investment is key to closing the digital divide, spurring competition and innovation that benefits consumers.

Right...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The framework adopted by the Commission today will protect consumers at far less cost to investment than the prior rigid and wide-ranging utility rules. And restoring a favorable climate for network investment is key to closing the digital divide, spurring competition and innovation that benefits consumers.

Ok seriously is this Ajit or are you a bot?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also note.....cable companies were already charging companies that wanted their content carried on their network. I lost DIY Network in my region because they couldn't come to terms with Verizon. That's the way free market works. I don't want big bad daddy government telling companies what content to carry.

Sigh...this tells me that you do not know what net neutrality means.

Please do some research and then get back to us. There is plenty of easily accessible information on the internet (for now).

What does it mean? Do you think it means companies will now start limiting what content you can access? They could have done that before net neutrality and they didn't. Now you think they will?

I don't think YOU know what net neutrality is and you think it is limited to content and throttling. I'm glad you rely on big Government to run your life and save from the big bad wolves. Net neutrality was government overreach at it's finest. It's a free market and the ISPs should be allowed to run their business as they see fit, and you can choose to patronize the one you want.

I look forward to cheaper internet now.

Actually, in many places you can't choose. These companies have service monopolies on plenty of areas where they already provide shitty service and people with no other option pay dearly.

And yes, they can absolutely limit the content indirectly, by making you pay more for certain content at their absolute discretion an nobody else's. What content? It could be anything that conflicts with their profits or literally WETF they want. Hope you like paying extra to stream your Netflix, visit websites that provide untainted reviews of these companies, etc.

THEY DIDN'T DO THIS BEFORE NET NEUTRALITY. What on God's earth makes you think they will start doing it now?

A convenient talking point, but in fact, THEY DID DO IT.

Some examples:
Comcast blocked or slowed BitTorrent site(s) -- https://www.cnet.com/news/comcast-really-does-block-bittorrent-traffic-after-all/
They also denied doing so for a long time before testing was conducted.

Apple iphones blocked the use of Skype over AT&T networks -- http://fortune.com/2009/04/03/group-asks-fcc-to-probe-iphone-skype-restrictions/

Same with Google Voice App -- https://www.pcworld.com/article/170661/apple_att_fight_voip_on_iphone.html

AT&T blocked FaceTime over their networks (while net neutrality was in place but they argued net neutrality didn't cover it so they could do it) -- https://www.cultofmac.com/186208/att-because-facetime-is-built-into-your-iphone-we-can-block-it-and-theres-nothing-you-can-do-about-it/
Here was their statement on the subject:

The FCC’s net neutrality rules do not regulate the availability to customers of applications that are preloaded on phones. Indeed, the rules do not require that providers make available any preloaded apps. Rather, they address whether customers are able to download apps that compete with our voice or video telephony services. AT&T does not restrict customers from downloading any such lawful applications, and there are several video chat apps available in the various app stores serving particular operating systems. (I won’t name any of them for fear that I will be accused by these same groups of discriminating in favor of those apps. But just go to your app store on your device and type “video chat.”) Therefore, there is no net neutrality violation.

Comcast slowed Netflix speeds to its customers (this is demonstrable with data), which led to Netflix having to come to an agreement with Comcast (read, pay Comcast) -- http://time.com/9373/comcast-netflix-deal/

Public-interest groups are also concerned that such deals could normalize an environment in which giant broadband providers extract fees simply for delivering Internet content to consumers. Deep-pocketed companies like Netflix can surely afford to pay such fees, but startups may not be able to do so, public-interest advocates warn, which could stifle the development of the next generation of Internet-based services.

Who was making the small business being stifled by government argument above? That last one is particularly relevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The framework adopted by the Commission today will protect consumers at far less cost to investment than the prior rigid and wide-ranging utility rules. And restoring a favorable climate for network investment is key to closing the digital divide, spurring competition and innovation that benefits consumers.

Dammit, you made me laugh spit diet coke all over the keyboard.

That was a good one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also note.....cable companies were already charging companies that wanted their content carried on their network. I lost DIY Network in my region because they couldn't come to terms with Verizon. That's the way free market works. I don't want big bad daddy government telling companies what content to carry.

Sigh...this tells me that you do not know what net neutrality means.

Please do some research and then get back to us. There is plenty of easily accessible information on the internet (for now).

What does it mean? Do you think it means companies will now start limiting what content you can access? They could have done that before net neutrality and they didn't. Now you think they will?

I don't think YOU know what net neutrality is and you think it is limited to content and throttling. I'm glad you rely on big Government to run your life and save from the big bad wolves. Net neutrality was government overreach at it's finest. It's a free market and the ISPs should be allowed to run their business as they see fit, and you can choose to patronize the one you want.

I look forward to cheaper internet now.

Actually, in many places you can't choose. These companies have service monopolies on plenty of areas where they already provide shitty service and people with no other option pay dearly.

And yes, they can absolutely limit the content indirectly, by making you pay more for certain content at their absolute discretion an nobody else's. What content? It could be anything that conflicts with their profits or literally WETF they want. Hope you like paying extra to stream your Netflix, visit websites that provide untainted reviews of these companies, etc.

THEY DIDN'T DO THIS BEFORE NET NEUTRALITY. What on God's earth makes you think they will start doing it now?

These are the same people who think it’s their right to have someone provide them a custom service because they are special. No reasoning with them. You are crystal clear and absolutely correct

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
THEY DIDN'T DO THIS BEFORE NET NEUTRALITY. What on God's earth makes you think they will start doing it now?

These are the same people who think it’s their right to have someone provide them a custom service because they are special. No reasoning with them. You are crystal clear and absolutely correct

My post to PP, from above:

A convenient talking point, but in fact, THEY DID DO IT.

Some examples:
Comcast blocked or slowed BitTorrent site(s) -- https://www.cnet.com/news/comcast-really-does-block-bittorrent-traffic-after-all/
They also denied doing so for a long time before testing was conducted.

Apple iphones blocked the use of Skype over AT&T networks -- http://fortune.com/2009/04/03/group-asks-fcc-to-probe-iphone-skype-restrictions/

Same with Google Voice App -- https://www.pcworld.com/article/170661/apple_att_fight_voip_on_iphone.html

AT&T blocked FaceTime over their networks (while net neutrality was in place but they argued net neutrality didn't cover it so they could do it) -- https://www.cultofmac.com/186208/att-because-facetime-is-built-into-your-iphone-we-can-block-it-and-theres-nothing-you-can-do-about-it/
Here was their statement on the subject:

The FCC’s net neutrality rules do not regulate the availability to customers of applications that are preloaded on phones. Indeed, the rules do not require that providers make available any preloaded apps. Rather, they address whether customers are able to download apps that compete with our voice or video telephony services. AT&T does not restrict customers from downloading any such lawful applications, and there are several video chat apps available in the various app stores serving particular operating systems. (I won’t name any of them for fear that I will be accused by these same groups of discriminating in favor of those apps. But just go to your app store on your device and type “video chat.”) Therefore, there is no net neutrality violation.

Comcast slowed Netflix speeds to its customers (this is demonstrable with data), which led to Netflix having to come to an agreement with Comcast (read, pay Comcast) -- http://time.com/9373/comcast-netflix-deal/

Public-interest groups are also concerned that such deals could normalize an environment in which giant broadband providers extract fees simply for delivering Internet content to consumers. Deep-pocketed companies like Netflix can surely afford to pay such fees, but startups may not be able to do so, public-interest advocates warn, which could stifle the development of the next generation of Internet-based services.

Who was making the small business being stifled by government argument above? That last one is particularly relevant.