FCC Chairman Ajit Pai reveals Net Neutrality repeal plan, vote on Dec. 14

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 42
    kerpow said:
    kerpow said:
    Good. We don't need the government involved in managing the Internet. Everyone worried about this wrecking the Internet are seeing imaginary monsters in the dark. 
    Apple itself disagrees with you. So does every other business that serves its content on the internet.

    Here's a scenario for you. News Channel X, that panders to blind, left-handed dentists, covers AT&T favoritism for one-eyed phlebotomists. AT&T doesn't like it.

    So, it decides to strangle the bandwidth for News Channel X, just because it can. No more video from News Channel X if you're an AT&T customer, because there just aren't enough bits available. So much for getting the news out equitably.

    Or, say, AT&T doesn't want Skype on the iPhone -- so it blocks it. Wait -- this actually happened with the iPhone. For two years.

    Or, Verizon doesn't want a contactless payment service on phones it provides access too, so it blocks them -- this happened too.
    I think its going to be fine and look forward to watching the companies who try the things you've described fail.
    Why would they? There's nothing to stop them.
    What was stopping them prior to 2015?
    SpamSandwich
  • Reply 22 of 42
    georgie01 said:
    kerpow said:

    I think its going to be fine and look forward to watching the companies who try the things you've described fail.
    I’m all for small and limited government, and there are elements of net neutrality I don’t like, but in the absence of a replacement it needs to stay. We cannot have content in the hands of ISPs unless we also want the content to become profit driven.

    Changes to the Internet, based on profit motivation, will likely be brought about in small doses, things that don’t seem too bad, or are at least tolerably bad. Then there will be another step. Rinse and repeat. And like any clever business tactic, by the time the changes have reached a level of ‘Oh wait, this sucks’, things will have already reached a level of near irreversibility. And the average person won’t really care anyway because they’ve become accustomed to it.

    This approach happens endlessly in business, and government, and politics, and it happens because people are selfish and most people do things for themselves and will happily exploit others if they can. Very few people are there to serve others and do what’s best for them when it means a pay check is at stake.

    So for something that is a national and even global service, to have decisions in hands of people who will take advantage of customers at every opportunity is a disastrous idea. The internet will change, guaranteed. If you’re saying you want these changes then fine, but it’s naive to think everything’s going to stay the same.
    You act like customers have no power to sway the direction ISPs go on this topic, when in fact they (we) have all of the power. Yes, things will change but it doesn't mean its all doom and gloom. Imagine the public outrage  and boycotting that will come if any ISP tries the stuff you all are worried about. I guess I'm just not a hand wringer.
  • Reply 23 of 42
    kerpow said:
    georgie01 said:
    kerpow said:

    I think its going to be fine and look forward to watching the companies who try the things you've described fail.
    I’m all for small and limited government, and there are elements of net neutrality I don’t like, but in the absence of a replacement it needs to stay. We cannot have content in the hands of ISPs unless we also want the content to become profit driven.

    Changes to the Internet, based on profit motivation, will likely be brought about in small doses, things that don’t seem too bad, or are at least tolerably bad. Then there will be another step. Rinse and repeat. And like any clever business tactic, by the time the changes have reached a level of ‘Oh wait, this sucks’, things will have already reached a level of near irreversibility. And the average person won’t really care anyway because they’ve become accustomed to it.

    This approach happens endlessly in business, and government, and politics, and it happens because people are selfish and most people do things for themselves and will happily exploit others if they can. Very few people are there to serve others and do what’s best for them when it means a pay check is at stake.

    So for something that is a national and even global service, to have decisions in hands of people who will take advantage of customers at every opportunity is a disastrous idea. The internet will change, guaranteed. If you’re saying you want these changes then fine, but it’s naive to think everything’s going to stay the same.
    You act like customers have no power to sway the direction ISPs go on this topic, when in fact they (we) have all of the power. Yes, things will change but it doesn't mean its all doom and gloom. Imagine the public outrage  and boycotting that will come if any ISP tries the stuff you all are worried about. I guess I'm just not a hand wringer.
    Remember these things are slowly rolled out.  Not overnight price increases.  Most of this will be charged to the companies that provide content, who in turn raise their prices to the consumer sector.  Telecom companies need another revenue stream.  Buy expensive content creators, new revenue streams for existing infrastructure or both.
    im sorry, but the internet should be an essential service, a right.  It says something when Apple and every other tech company says this is a bad idea...
    lostkiwiOfer
  • Reply 24 of 42
    The Silicon Valley Trump. Don’t worry, the value will trickle down to users. 
    lostkiwi
  • Reply 25 of 42
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 6,553administrator
    kerpow said:
    kerpow said:
    kerpow said:
    Good. We don't need the government involved in managing the Internet. Everyone worried about this wrecking the Internet are seeing imaginary monsters in the dark. 
    Apple itself disagrees with you. So does every other business that serves its content on the internet.

    Here's a scenario for you. News Channel X, that panders to blind, left-handed dentists, covers AT&T favoritism for one-eyed phlebotomists. AT&T doesn't like it.

    So, it decides to strangle the bandwidth for News Channel X, just because it can. No more video from News Channel X if you're an AT&T customer, because there just aren't enough bits available. So much for getting the news out equitably.

    Or, say, AT&T doesn't want Skype on the iPhone -- so it blocks it. Wait -- this actually happened with the iPhone. For two years.

    Or, Verizon doesn't want a contactless payment service on phones it provides access too, so it blocks them -- this happened too.
    I think its going to be fine and look forward to watching the companies who try the things you've described fail.
    Why would they? There's nothing to stop them.
    What was stopping them prior to 2015?
    Nothing. 

    That's why they did things like blocking Skype, throttling Netflix, blocking contactless payments, and other things. It all stopped when net neutrality provisos kicked in.
    lostkiwielectrosoftOfer
  • Reply 26 of 42
    tylersdad said:
    hattig said:
    Bad luck America.

    Services are going to be tiered to hell and back as soon as they can do that.

    Oh, I'm sure the dross will still be available for all to see, and 'approved content' will be on the cheaper tiers as well.

    But most service providers exist in localised monopolies, so without competition they will gauge you if you want streaming services they don't provide themselves, or news sources that aren't favoured, and so on. Oh, you want to do online gaming? That's only available on the $100pm tier.
    Services are already tiered. I pay extra for faster connectivity. If I want to lower my monthly bill, I can choose a lower plan. 

    Let's be clear: Prior to this decision, ISPs were allowed to do exactly what you describe, but they didn't. If an ISP does, you just switch ISPs. 
    From you're comment, it's pretty clear you don't understand the subject matter.  Your speed may be tiered but your traffic is not.  That's what you're missing. 
    Example: Tylersdad has a 25 Mbps (Tier 1) connection and pays $50/month.  For $10 more per month, he can get a 50 Mbps (Tier 2) connection. For $20 more than Tier 2 he can get 75 Mbps for $80 per month.  That's tiered service.  That has nothing to do with net neutrality.  
    Here's what the repeal of net neutrality can get you:
    Tylersdad likes to stream movies to his Apple TV,  likes to watch Netflix on his iPad, and game through his Steam account on his iMac.  Under net neutrality, no matter what he's doing he gets the same speed at the same cost.  Without net neutrality, ISP can charge for tiered access to traffic -different from tiered service- based on sites, type of traffic, or any other parameter they decide.  So in this new paradigm, if Tylersdad wants to stream movies on his Apple TV he has to pay $50 bucks for basic internet package (BIP) + $15 for Tier 1 streaming.  Tier 1 covers streaming to ATV, Roku, Fire Sticks, etc.  but does not include Netflix or Amazon Prime streaming.  For that you need to move up to Tier 2 streaming which is $25 extra.  Tylersdad likes Steam.  Can't stream things like Steam or Youtube on rinky dink Tier 2 though.  You gotta step up to Tier 3 Popular Traffic for an extra $50 per month.  Oh, and certain sites can only be accessed from Tier 3 traffic.  Sites like Apple.com or Appleinsider.com.  Mind you that's on top of your basic internet charge.

    To be fair, my example is a bit of hyperbole but nothing in it is out of the realm of possibility without net neutrality. Again, net neutrality is about your traffic, not your overall speed.
    Here's a visual representation.

    Based on your reply it’s clear you prefer to deal in hyperbole, exaggeration, and strawman arguments. The fact is, ISPs had decades to do precisely what you describe. They didn’t. 

    If they did, they would lose customers and the free market would likely respond with ISPs that don’t have such ridiculous pricing. 
    SpamSandwich
  • Reply 27 of 42

    kerpow said:
    Good. We don't need the government involved in managing the Internet. Everyone worried about this wrecking the Internet are seeing imaginary monsters in the dark. 
    But we do! If the government doesn't manage it, some big companies will. The difference is that the first option is (hopefully) for the benefit of the people living in the country, whereas the latter will benefit only the ISP's themselves.

    tylersdad said:
    Let's be clear: Prior to this decision, ISPs were allowed to do exactly what you describe, but they didn't.
    If the ISP's didn't violate Net Neutrality prior to this regulation, why does it need removal now?

    tylersdad said:
    If an ISP does, you just switch ISPs.
    And if all the ISP's do?
    Several ISPs, including AT&T and Comcast, have indicated that they prefer the regulations stay in place. That should give you some indication what they plan to do once net neutrality is voted down. Additionally, ISPs had the opportunity to charge extra prior to the net neutrality vote. They didn’t. That should be another clear indicator. 

    I was actually in favor of net neutrality until the old FCC board declared Internet access a right and wanted to increase the universal coverage fee. 


    SpamSandwich
  • Reply 28 of 42
    dewmedewme Posts: 4,546member
    It’s absolutely criminal the way the current administration has turned over the care and governance of America’s crucial public services and resources to the very same people who seek to destroy them. It’s worse than the inmates running the asylum. They’re dismantling the asylum and selling off the disembodied pieces for profit to the highest well-heeled bidder who’s financing their ill begotten spoils with taxpayer money. Disgusting.
    apple jockeylostkiwimuthuk_vanalingammichael madsenOferclemynx
  • Reply 29 of 42
    dewme said:
    It’s absolutely criminal the way the current administration has turned over the care and governance of America’s crucial public services and resources to the very same people who seek to destroy them. It’s worse than the inmates runningisriminatory  the asylum. They’re dismantling the asylum and selling off the disembodied pieces for profit to the highest well-heeled bidder who’s financing their ill begotten spoils with taxpayer money. Disgusting.
    So true! 
  • Reply 30 of 42
    LordeHawk said:
    kerpow said:
    georgie01 said:
    kerpow said:

    I think its going to be fine and look forward to watching the companies who try the things you've described fail.
    I’m all for small and limited government, and there are elements of net neutrality I don’t like, but in the absence of a replacement it needs to stay. We cannot have content in the hands of ISPs unless we also want the content to become profit driven.

    Changes to the Internet, based on profit motivation, will likely be brought about in small doses, things that don’t seem too bad, or are at least tolerably bad. Then there will be another step. Rinse and repeat. And like any clever business tactic, by the time the changes have reached a level of ‘Oh wait, this sucks’, things will have already reached a level of near irreversibility. And the average person won’t really care anyway because they’ve become accustomed to it.

    This approach happens endlessly in business, and government, and politics, and it happens because people are selfish and most people do things for themselves and will happily exploit others if they can. Very few people are there to serve others and do what’s best for them when it means a pay check is at stake.

    So for something that is a national and even global service, to have decisions in hands of people who will take advantage of customers at every opportunity is a disastrous idea. The internet will change, guaranteed. If you’re saying you want these changes then fine, but it’s naive to think everything’s going to stay the same.
    You act like customers have no power to sway the direction ISPs go on this topic, when in fact they (we) have all of the power. Yes, things will change but it doesn't mean its all doom and gloom. Imagine the public outrage  and boycotting that will come if any ISP tries the stuff you all are worried about. I guess I'm just not a hand wringer.
    Remember these things are slowly rolled out.  Not overnight price increases.  Most of this will be charged to the companies that provide content, who in turn raise their prices to the consumer sector.  Telecom companies need another revenue stream.  Buy expensive content creators, new revenue streams for existing infrastructure or both.
    im sorry, but the internet should be an essential service, a right.  It says something when Apple and every other tech company says this is a bad idea...
    Good Lord, what are they teaching kids in school these days? Internet Service is not a “right”. Neither is phone service, a job, a house, a car, food, etc.
  • Reply 31 of 42
    It will be interesting to see what impact this has on access from jurisdictions outside of US where Net neutrality is still required. Example: Apple.com is "throttled" within US jurisdictions/ISPs, but Canadian ISPs can't throttle access to Apple.com. Will there be trade agreements updated to reflect the requirement to discriminate access speed based on country of residence? (hmm, something like all the content regulations today?) Introducing a "caste" system to the internet is not going to go well. Apple/Netflix and others oppose this because they will likely be required to pay ISPs for priority access, and the consumer will also be asked to pay for priority/QoS
  • Reply 32 of 42
    jxmillerjxmiller Posts: 1unconfirmed, member
    There's nothing wrong with competition, but this isn't that. Most don't have much of a choice in ISPs. And, I don't think having your ISP picking winners/losers when it comes to content is "free market".
  • Reply 33 of 42
    jxmiller said:
    There's nothing wrong with competition, but this isn't that. Most don't have much of a choice in ISPs. And, I don't think having your ISP picking winners/losers when it comes to content is "free market".
    See: "Elon Musk satellite Internet 2019"
  • Reply 34 of 42
    clemynxclemynx Posts: 1,536member
    tylersdad said:
    hattig said:
    Bad luck America.

    Services are going to be tiered to hell and back as soon as they can do that.

    Oh, I'm sure the dross will still be available for all to see, and 'approved content' will be on the cheaper tiers as well.

    But most service providers exist in localised monopolies, so without competition they will gauge you if you want streaming services they don't provide themselves, or news sources that aren't favoured, and so on. Oh, you want to do online gaming? That's only available on the $100pm tier.
    Services are already tiered. I pay extra for faster connectivity. If I want to lower my monthly bill, I can choose a lower plan. 

    Let's be clear: Prior to this decision, ISPs were allowed to do exactly what you describe, but they didn't. If an ISP does, you just switch ISPs. 
    They weren’t. 
  • Reply 35 of 42
    clemynxclemynx Posts: 1,536member
    tylersdad said:

    .... you just switch ISPs. 
    Ha ha ha...

    That's really funny.
    What used to sound like capitalist naïveté now sounds like idiocy. 
    People who are opposed to all government control by principle are brainwashed and out of touch with reality. 
  • Reply 36 of 42
    clemynxclemynx Posts: 1,536member
    kerpow said:
    kerpow said:
    Good. We don't need the government involved in managing the Internet. Everyone worried about this wrecking the Internet are seeing imaginary monsters in the dark. 
    Apple itself disagrees with you. So does every other business that serves its content on the internet.

    Here's a scenario for you. News Channel X, that panders to blind, left-handed dentists, covers AT&T favoritism for one-eyed phlebotomists. AT&T doesn't like it.

    So, it decides to strangle the bandwidth for News Channel X, just because it can. No more video from News Channel X if you're an AT&T customer, because there just aren't enough bits available. So much for getting the news out equitably.

    Or, say, AT&T doesn't want Skype on the iPhone -- so it blocks it. Wait -- this actually happened with the iPhone. For two years.

    Or, Verizon doesn't want a contactless payment service on phones it provides access too, so it blocks them -- this happened too.
    I think its going to be fine and look forward to watching the companies who try the things you've described fail.
    They wouldn’t spend millions in lobbying if they didn’t plan to do it. 
  • Reply 37 of 42
    clemynxclemynx Posts: 1,536member
    kerpow said:
    georgie01 said:
    kerpow said:

    I think its going to be fine and look forward to watching the companies who try the things you've described fail.
    I’m all for small and limited government, and there are elements of net neutrality I don’t like, but in the absence of a replacement it needs to stay. We cannot have content in the hands of ISPs unless we also want the content to become profit driven.

    Changes to the Internet, based on profit motivation, will likely be brought about in small doses, things that don’t seem too bad, or are at least tolerably bad. Then there will be another step. Rinse and repeat. And like any clever business tactic, by the time the changes have reached a level of ‘Oh wait, this sucks’, things will have already reached a level of near irreversibility. And the average person won’t really care anyway because they’ve become accustomed to it.

    This approach happens endlessly in business, and government, and politics, and it happens because people are selfish and most people do things for themselves and will happily exploit others if they can. Very few people are there to serve others and do what’s best for them when it means a pay check is at stake.

    So for something that is a national and even global service, to have decisions in hands of people who will take advantage of customers at every opportunity is a disastrous idea. The internet will change, guaranteed. If you’re saying you want these changes then fine, but it’s naive to think everything’s going to stay the same.
    You act like customers have no power to sway the direction ISPs go on this topic, when in fact they (we) have all of the power. Yes, things will change but it doesn't mean its all doom and gloom. Imagine the public outrage  and boycotting that will come if any ISP tries the stuff you all are worried about. I guess I'm just not a hand wringer.
    Those things have happened in other countries and people have said nothing. 

    The naivete of the right when it comes to people complaining is baffling. 

    REMINDER : the US is the only country in the world not in the Paris agreement. Millions should be in the streets. Where are they?

    The Trump admin has done hundreds of awful things and people’s complaints aren’t doing much. 

    Another example : Many in the Trump admin have lied about their relations to Russia, everybody should be in the streets asking for their resignations. 
    apple jockey
  • Reply 38 of 42
    clemynx said:
    kerpow said:
    georgie01 said:
    kerpow said:

    I think its going to be fine and look forward to watching the companies who try the things you've described fail.
    I’m all for small and limited government, and there are elements of net neutrality I don’t like, but in the absence of a replacement it needs to stay. We cannot have content in the hands of ISPs unless we also want the content to become profit driven.

    Changes to the Internet, based on profit motivation, will likely be brought about in small doses, things that don’t seem too bad, or are at least tolerably bad. Then there will be another step. Rinse and repeat. And like any clever business tactic, by the time the changes have reached a level of ‘Oh wait, this sucks’, things will have already reached a level of near irreversibility. And the average person won’t really care anyway because they’ve become accustomed to it.

    This approach happens endlessly in business, and government, and politics, and it happens because people are selfish and most people do things for themselves and will happily exploit others if they can. Very few people are there to serve others and do what’s best for them when it means a pay check is at stake.

    So for something that is a national and even global service, to have decisions in hands of people who will take advantage of customers at every opportunity is a disastrous idea. The internet will change, guaranteed. If you’re saying you want these changes then fine, but it’s naive to think everything’s going to stay the same.
    You act like customers have no power to sway the direction ISPs go on this topic, when in fact they (we) have all of the power. Yes, things will change but it doesn't mean its all doom and gloom. Imagine the public outrage  and boycotting that will come if any ISP tries the stuff you all are worried about. I guess I'm just not a hand wringer.
    Those things have happened in other countries and people have said nothing. 

    The naivete of the right when it comes to people complaining is baffling. 

    REMINDER : the US is the only country in the world not in the Paris agreement. Millions should be in the streets. Where are they?

    The Trump admin has done hundreds of awful things and people’s complaints aren’t doing much. 

    Another example : Many in the Trump admin have lied about their relations to Russia, everybody should be in the streets asking for their resignations. 
    What in the world does the unenforceable Paris 'handshake' agreement have to do with anything? The President was not authorized to make a legal agreement with other countries and that's why the Paris accord wasn't binding!
  • Reply 39 of 42
    clemynxclemynx Posts: 1,536member
    dewme said:
    It’s absolutely criminal the way the current administration has turned over the care and governance of America’s crucial public services and resources to the very same people who seek to destroy them. It’s worse than the inmates running the asylum. They’re dismantling the asylum and selling off the disembodied pieces for profit to the highest well-heeled bidder who’s financing their ill begotten spoils with taxpayer money. Disgusting.
    It is indeed criminal. A disaster of epic and unprecedented proportions. What baffles me the most is how (sorry for the cliche) evil they are. One every single subject they are doing the opposite of what is good. Every one! It’s incredibly bad on taxes, healthcare, environment protection, finance, pharmaceutics...
  • Reply 40 of 42
    clemynxclemynx Posts: 1,536member
    clemynx said:
    kerpow said:
    georgie01 said:
    kerpow said:

    I think its going to be fine and look forward to watching the companies who try the things you've described fail.
    I’m all for small and limited government, and there are elements of net neutrality I don’t like, but in the absence of a replacement it needs to stay. We cannot have content in the hands of ISPs unless we also want the content to become profit driven.

    Changes to the Internet, based on profit motivation, will likely be brought about in small doses, things that don’t seem too bad, or are at least tolerably bad. Then there will be another step. Rinse and repeat. And like any clever business tactic, by the time the changes have reached a level of ‘Oh wait, this sucks’, things will have already reached a level of near irreversibility. And the average person won’t really care anyway because they’ve become accustomed to it.

    This approach happens endlessly in business, and government, and politics, and it happens because people are selfish and most people do things for themselves and will happily exploit others if they can. Very few people are there to serve others and do what’s best for them when it means a pay check is at stake.

    So for something that is a national and even global service, to have decisions in hands of people who will take advantage of customers at every opportunity is a disastrous idea. The internet will change, guaranteed. If you’re saying you want these changes then fine, but it’s naive to think everything’s going to stay the same.
    You act like customers have no power to sway the direction ISPs go on this topic, when in fact they (we) have all of the power. Yes, things will change but it doesn't mean its all doom and gloom. Imagine the public outrage  and boycotting that will come if any ISP tries the stuff you all are worried about. I guess I'm just not a hand wringer.
    Those things have happened in other countries and people have said nothing. 

    The naivete of the right when it comes to people complaining is baffling. 

    REMINDER : the US is the only country in the world not in the Paris agreement. Millions should be in the streets. Where are they?

    The Trump admin has done hundreds of awful things and people’s complaints aren’t doing much. 

    Another example : Many in the Trump admin have lied about their relations to Russia, everybody should be in the streets asking for their resignations. 
    What in the world does the unenforceable Paris 'handshake' agreement have to do with anything? The President was not authorized to make a legal agreement with other countries and that's why the Paris accord wasn't binding!
    It has everything to do with it. You Trumpists are embracing all the wrong and evil things. You oppose the fight against climate change, net neutrality, consumer protections against banks and healthcare for all. You know, things that all other developed countries in the world have. 
Sign In or Register to comment.