This chaps my damn biscuits. FCC repeals 'Net Neutrality'

[NirvanaFan]

what’s bad with how things are now? Again, why should we have to pay to get access to media? Why should we give power to Verizon, or ComCast to access a website? It’s like the beginning of the darker phase of the internet imo

Yeah, the internet was such a dark place up until 20 months ago. There was no innovation, and it was all just a bunch of rich people that controlled it....

Nobody should be forced to deliver content that they don't agree with. Should you be able to go into Pepsi's headquarters and start screaming how much better Coca Cola is? Why shouldn't Pepsi decide what happens with their company?

 

[SomeSoldier]

Free market.

 

[Calculon]

Free market.

This is it- plain and simple.

 

[CaseHardened]

Repealing is a bad idea. The internet is as crucial to modern society as electricity and public roads. Businesses are now freer to f with it in ways that will definitely hurt consumers. How will any of this possibly help us? The only problem 99% of us have with our internet is that we'd prefer if it were faster and/or cheaper. Throttling and pay for play is a bad idea.

There is rarely anything that Blimey supports that I disagree with.

NET NEUTRALITY is complicated.

I will not lie and state I understand it.

BUT OBAMA WAS FOR IT.

The Kenyan is no genius, but he bent over and took directions from the Globalists like an Ass-to-Mouth Whore.

I continue to trust PRESIDENT Trump.

Let's just cool our jets and let it play out.

 

[wdeister08]

One of my kids is upset about this too. But I told them to sit back and see what happens first. Think about this: the internet we all know and love (mostly) started around 1996 (after Al Gore invented it), and seemed to be doing fine through 2015 when OBasturd decided to fuck with it with more of his social justice type regulations. The Kenyan and his BS can go away as far as I am concerned. If it turns out that so called Net Neutrality was a good thing, we'll find out in due time, and they can be put back in place. In the meantime, don't get your underwear all in a twist over it.

We actually had Net Neutrality before Obama's decision. What he did was encode it so that it created an additional bulwark. Net neutrality as an issue existed long ago. It didnt start in 2015. It's at least 11 years old - when I started to learn internet politics.

 

[redtail]

 

[Marine Cpl]

The free market is good and all that if there is competition. That's not the case with home internet in most cases. It's basically a monopoly. You never see Spectrum and Cablevision operating in the same area. All you get is Verizon and it isn't offered in most rural areas.

 

[Darth]

The free market is good and all that if there is competition. That's not the case with home internet in most cases. It's basically a monopoly. You never see Spectrum and Cablevision operating in the same area. All you get is Verizon and it isn't offered in most rural areas.

If only there was a way or incentive for them to move into such locations.

Like a demand or something.

 

[Marine Cpl]

If only there was a way or incentive for them to move into such locations.

Like a demand or something.

Oh there is a demand. I don't know one person who would rather not have any choices and be limited to just one cable company. To say otherwise is disingenuous.

These cable companies have agreements with each other not to go into each other's territory so that they can monopolize their own territories and charge you what they feel like. They'll make more money that way then duking it out with each other.

You can always choose to not have internet but that isn't realistic. Having the internet is a necessity nowadays.

 

[Darth]

Oh there is a demand. I don't know one person who would rather not have any choices and be limited to just one cable company. To say otherwise is disingenuous.

These cable companies have agreements with each other not to go into each other's territory so that they can monopolize their own territories and charge you what they feel like. They'll make more money that way then duking it out with each other.

You can always choose to not have internet but that isn't realistic. Having the internet is a necessity nowadays.

No, it's not at all. That's the she argument for a higher minimum wage.

 

[Marine Cpl]

No, it's not at all. That's the she argument for a higher minimum wage.

I don't see your point.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Internet should just be internet. Same speed no matter what you do. Charge you by the byte rather than the content. When you give these companies the power to charge you for content, they could easily make it where Brietbart is too expensive to access but CNN is cheap.

 

[Darth]

Internet should just be internet. Same speed no matter what you do. Charge you by the byte rather than the content. When you give these companies the power to charge you for content, they could easily make it where Brietbart is too expensive to access but CNN is cheap.

Agreed, but I'm still not seeing where we have the right to dictate under threat of force on how a private company runs their operations?

 

[NirvanaFan]

Internet should just be internet. Same speed no matter what you do. Charge you by the byte rather than the content. When you give these companies the power to charge you for content, they could easily make it where Brietbart is too expensive to access but CNN is cheap.

Paying by the MB is already an option. Just get satellite internet.

If businesses see an opportunity to make money, they will move in and expand. Look what's happening with Greenlight in Rochester. Spectrum and Frontier were basically the only two choices. Greenlight has been expanding at a decent clip (especially recently). It's cheaper ($50) and faster (100m down, 20m up).

 

[Marine Cpl]

Where I live I have 4 reliable choices. Spectrum, Spectrum, Spectrum, and Spectrum.

 

[MilesTeg]

Where I live I have 4 reliable choices. Spectrum, Spectrum, Spectrum, and Spectrum.

I have satellite and super slow DSL. I have yet to find anything that works for us.

 

[Grimscale]

So what was wrong with the internet before 2015 that was fixed with the Obama rules?

I keep hearing people say "what the .gov was afraid of wasn't happening before Obama messed with it..." but YES THEY WERE!

Don't you recall reading about how Comcast wanted (and eventually got) Netflix to pay them money so that they would not throttle Netflix's traffic? Even though Netflix does not directly connect to Comcast (or didn't at the time).
Netflix: Comcast is charging us for access to our subscribers | ZDNet

As corporations starting trying to monetize each and ever aspect of anything they have their hands in, they will start interfering with the free flow of information on the Internet. You will have the same kind of 'choice' as to where you can browse that we New Yorker's now have about what kinds of rifles we can buy. Only, unlike with rifles, you just have to pay extra to some big corporation for certain websites.

So, you want to argue that the cables belong to that big corporation, and that they can do whatever they want with it?
That would be all well and good, if those big corporations haven't been sucking MILLIONS out of our tax dollars to string up those lines, buy those routers, etc. ISPs get a ton of 'subsidies' to run and expand their network, usually on the (broken) promise that they will provide unfettered internet access to rural areas (Connect America Fund) Connect America Fund (CAF)

And, finally, ISPs used to argue they were "common carriers" so as to avoid being held responsible when illegal content was transmitted across their circuits. Yet now they argue against being "common carriers" because they want to monetize that very same traffic!
you can't have it both ways.

so, let the big ISPs pat themselves on the backs because they bought and paid for Idjit Pie. Right up until they end up paying MILLIONS of dollars to some parent whose kid was photographed in a sexually explicit way and those pictures ended up on the Internet. Because now it can happen. See how quickly they start screaming it isn't their fault, that they just provide a pipe, that they have no control over the traffic, when we all know they can and DO have that control.

Good going, big ISPs, you just shot yourself in the foot over a measly price increase.

 

[speedkills27]

correct me if Im wrong but wasn't the internet considered a public utility up until 2005?

 

[NirvanaFan]

Don't you recall reading about how Comcast wanted (and eventually got) Netflix to pay them money so that they would not throttle Netflix's traffic? Even though Netflix does not directly connect to Comcast (or didn't at the time).

Comcast never throttled Netflix traffic. They just didn't open up peering ports, and they were under no obligation to do so. There is a difference. They didn't just go out and say, "Netflix traffic sucks up all our throughput, let's go ahead and throttle them down to 50%." They said, "Holy crap, Netflix is eating up all our throughput making everything slow. Let's not just let them overrun our network."

So, you want to argue that the cables belong to that big corporation, and that they can do whatever they want with it?
That would be all well and good, if those big corporations haven't been sucking MILLIONS out of our tax dollars to string up those lines, buy those routers, etc.

This is a classic, "The government isn't working right, let's get more government!" Adding more regulations, hand outs, and kick backs isn't the answer. Government shouldn't be picking the winners and losers to begin with.

And, finally, ISPs used to argue they were "common carriers" so as to avoid being held responsible when illegal content was transmitted across their circuits. Yet now they argue against being "common carriers" because they want to monetize that very same traffic!
you can't have it both ways.

ISPs can detect if content is an image, but they can't detect if that image is child porn or a lolcat. They can't detect the difference between me uploading a porn stream or a stream of my awesome dance skills, but they know both are video.

 

[Grimscale]

This is a classic, "The government isn't working right, let's get more government!" Adding more regulations, hand outs, and kick backs isn't the answer. Government shouldn't be picking the winners and losers to begin with.

I never said "the government isn't working right". I said "the corporation who took the tax money wasn't working right."
And is it so onerous a regulation that stipulates "don't fuck with the traffic"?
There's nothing in NN about handouts or kickbacks, so why did you include those?
And this is not the .gov picking a winner or loser. It's the .gov saying "don't fuck with the traffic". This would help smaller ISPs to be able to break into the market, which, up to now, is monopolistic in the extreme.

ISPs can detect if content is an image, but they can't detect if that image is child porn or a lolcat. They can't detect the difference between me uploading a porn stream or a stream of my awesome dance skills, but they know both are video.

There is already technology that can deduce if an image is of a person, how much skin is showing, and the apparent age (generally: child vs. adult kind of thing).
There is technology that can supposedly tell if a video is porn.

Yes, there can be false positives, and no, I'm not advocating for the use of this technology. I'm simply stating it is there, so these ISPs who don't want to be sued have options.

an ISP should be a link to the Internet, and that is all. No different than a telco let's you make calls, but doesn't care to whom.
You pay for your link to the internet, and you can do whatever you want, and take responsibility for your actions online.
The second the ISPs start getting in the middle of that, they are now liable for that content as much as you are.

 

[NirvanaFan]

I never said "the government isn't working right". I said "the corporation who took the tax money wasn't working right."
And is it so onerous a regulation that stipulates "don't fuck with the traffic"?
There's nothing in NN about handouts or kickbacks, so why did you include those?
And this is not the .gov picking a winner or loser. It's the .gov saying "don't fuck with the traffic". This would help smaller ISPs to be able to break into the market, which, up to now, is monopolistic in the extreme.

It was more of a rant about government in general, not specific to NN.

You don't see an issue with government picking winners and losers? That is exactly what they have done for decades now. Know why lobbyists have so much influence in politics? It's because government gives money and picks the winners and losers. That's not right. The government shouldn't be giving millions of dollars to corporations.

Government is causing these monopolies! They make it very difficult and expensive for businesses to start. Don’t Blame Big Cable. It’s Local Governments That Choke Broadband Competition

I have a major issue with government coming into a private corporation and telling them how to run their business. Should the government make the Christian baker make a wedding cake for a gay couple? Should the government come in and force a pizza place to offer pepperoni if they don't want to?

Why should ISPs have to deliver content they disagree with? If you argue that they should have to deliver all content the same, then what is stopping them from making NYGF deliver all content that we disagree with?

 

[camper4lyfe]

Paying by the MB is already an option. Just get satellite internet.

If businesses see an opportunity to make money, they will move in and expand. Look what's happening with Greenlight in Rochester. Spectrum and Frontier were basically the only two choices. Greenlight has been expanding at a decent clip (especially recently). It's cheaper ($50) and faster (100m down, 20m up).

I was so giddy when Greenlight hit my neighborhood. I dropped TWC/Spectrum faster than a red headed step child.

 

[NirvanaFan]

I was so giddy when Greenlight hit my neighborhood. I dropped TWC/Spectrum faster than a red headed step child.

Same here. I dropped TWC/spectrum internet less than a week after it being available. I've got faster speeds and saved $15/mo. No more randomly having to reset my router either.

 

[camper4lyfe]

Same here. I dropped TWC/spectrum internet less than a week after it being available. I've got faster speeds and saved $15/mo. No more randomly having to reset my router either.

I do still need to buy a new router. I'm getting throttled a bit there.

 

[Marine Cpl]

It was more of a rant about government in general, not specific to NN.

You don't see an issue with government picking winners and losers? That is exactly what they have done for decades now. Know why lobbyists have so much influence in politics? It's because government gives money and picks the winners and losers. That's not right. The government shouldn't be giving millions of dollars to corporations.

Government is causing these monopolies! They make it very difficult and expensive for businesses to start. Don’t Blame Big Cable. It’s Local Governments That Choke Broadband Competition

I have a major issue with government coming into a private corporation and telling them how to run their business. Should the government make the Christian baker make a wedding cake for a gay couple? Should the government come in and force a pizza place to offer pepperoni if they don't want to?

Why should ISPs have to deliver content they disagree with? If you argue that they should have to deliver all content the same, then what is stopping them from making NYGF deliver all content that we disagree with?

No. Of course not. But should an electric company that's the only thing in town be allowed to charge x amount of dollars per watt of electricity and unlimited draw to blue homes and x amount of dollars times 10 per watt and limited draw to red homes?

While that analogy isn't 100 percent, it's similar to what can happen if they charge whatever they want to view conservative websites. They can also use their mighty dollar to strong arm the little businesses out of business or flat out buy them out like Spectrum is doing to ensure that they are the only game in town.

 

[Darth]

No. Of course not. But should an electric company that's the only thing in town be allowed to charge x amount of dollars per watt of electricity and unlimited draw to blue homes and x amount of dollars times 10 per watt and limited draw to red homes?

While that analogy isn't 100 percent, it's similar to what can happen if they charge whatever they want to view conservative websites. They can also use their mighty dollar to strong arm the little businesses out of business or flat out buy them out like Spectrum is doing to ensure that they are the only game in town.

Yes, they should be.

Their service, their rules.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Yes, they should be.

Their service, their rules.

Your libertarian values will libertarian yourself out of existence.

 

[NirvanaFan]

No. Of course not. But should an electric company that's the only thing in town be allowed to charge x amount of dollars per watt of electricity and unlimited draw to blue homes and x amount of dollars times 10 per watt and limited draw to red homes?

While that analogy isn't 100 percent, it's similar to what can happen if they charge whatever they want to view conservative websites. They can also use their mighty dollar to strong arm the little businesses out of business or flat out buy them out like Spectrum is doing to ensure that they are the only game in town.

I'd argue that home internet isn't a necessity like electric, so the two aren't comparable. You have plenty of options for internet. Cable (Spectrum, Cox, Comcast, whoever), satellite, phone (AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, whoever), DSL, etc. There are options. Increasing government regulations isn't going to increase competition and give you more options.

 

[Darth]

Your libertarian values will libertarian yourself out of existence.

Can't wait until I starve to death from lack of internet.

But in all seriousness, name one thing the government has done better than the free market.

 

[Celt]

Good I'm glad it was rolled back. The free market will prevail in the end. If you don't like what someone is charging then don't use the service. There is no violation of constitutional rights or anything else that's going on. Let's shrink the government not expand it.

And for God's sake, stop believing what you hear in the media.