Text of FCC 'Proposal to Restore Internet Freedom' released, eradicates net neutrality rul...

1246789

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 174
    Sophistry remains the religion of American politics.
  • Reply 62 of 174
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member

    georgie01 said:
    lkrupp said:

    Net neutrality is an Obama era invention. How did we ever get along all these years without it? Before net neutrality was AI ever blocked by some Windows person at a carrier? It didn’t happen before the government’s power grab and it won’t happen after either even though it is ‘theoretically’ possible. Labeling Internet service as a utility no different than natural gas or electricity so the government could control it was a mistake and I’m happy it’s going away.

    The only restrictions I remember from the days before net neutrality was that websites told me to go away because I was a Mac user and wasn’t running IE as by browser. The government didn’t fix that, competition and innovation did.
    Why don’t you look at this from the perspective of internet capabilities? The internet continues to get faster and more capable and there are increasing opportunities in internet monetisation. The internet has stayed neutral despite commercial interest. There is no reason at all to think the internet will continue to remain neutral. As the capabilities increase the business opportunities increase, and even well-meaning entrepreneurs will seek out opportunities unaware of the effect of their actions. And, of course, there are plenty of people who will happily screw their customers and ruin anything if they can get away with it. As much as I did not like Obama policies in general the idea of net neutrality is vital in keeping the internet the way it is—it might be the one thing Obama’s administration did that I liked!

    The internet is bigger than a commercial venture. While much of it is entertainment, that’s not its philosophy and shouldn’t be. It’s the easy and free distribution of information and communication. It’s more like utility services than it is like a television network.
    That’s simply a utopian view of how things really work. The Internet is only as valuable as its connections and those connections are many millions of servers, databases and other kinds of inputs which must all be paid for somehow. This “free Internet” meme has always been utter nonsense.
    Nobody has really talked about the free internet. We all know that we have to pay for service. The free internet is the information that flows over it, which is often free.

    in most businesses, it’s understood that you don’t compete with your customers. In the case of ISPs, the customers are not only the users, but also the companies that run over their networks. They shouldn’t be competing with them. It’s the old argument of pipes vs services. The problem when ISPs offer the same services as their customers, and they offer crappy services they have problems selling, they do what businesses do if they aren’t prevented from doing it, which is, instead of improving their services, or lowering their prices, which is what capitalistic theory says will happen, they make it more difficult for these competing services to survive, which is what really happens.

    so we end up with crappier services, often at higher prices, once the competition is ruined. But that’s what you want, right?
    roundaboutnowradarthekat
  • Reply 63 of 174
    lkrupp said:
    melgross said:
    Well, here we go, just another move by the Trump administration to take more rights away from us. Now, removing these rules, which were hard fought for, will allow ISPs to decide which sites they will carry. One day, if someone at Comcast, Spectrum, AT&T, Verizon and others is a Windows person, we may not be able to get AppleInsider from them. Isn’t that just great?
    What if, theoretically possible, maybe, could, might, possibility. Blathering nonsense. Net neutrality is an Obama era invention. How did we ever get along all these years without it? Before net neutrality was AI ever blocked by some Windows person at a carrier? It didn’t happen before the government’s power grab and it won’t happen after either even though it is ‘theoretically’ possible. Labeling Internet service as a utility no different than natural gas or electricity so the government could control it was a mistake and I’m happy it’s going away.

    The only restrictions I remember from the days before net neutrality was that websites told me to go away because I was a Mac user and wasn’t running IE as by browser. The government didn’t fix that, competition and innovation did.
    If the companies aren’t interested in throttling and paid access, they why do they even care that it’s banned?  If no ISP is planning to introduce these practices, then the current regulations banning them are no burden and revoking would have no effect, so theoretically the ISPs are just flushing their money down the toilet lobbing for their repeal.  Meanwhile, back in the real world, anyone cable of critical thought can easily recognize the nonsense of your arguement.
    roundaboutnowradarthekatclemynxapple jockey
  • Reply 64 of 174
    It astonishes, and saddens me, to see all the asinine, fucking retarded commentary being posted here even REMOTELY in support of Pai's plan to dismantle net neutrality, and how fucking BLIND all you posters are to the truth of what will happen shortly thereafter...

    Your country is so fucked up, it's fucking itself and doesn't even know it's doing it anymore, congratulations!
    clemynxradarthekatapple jockey
  • Reply 65 of 174
    Look what happened when the 1996 telecom bill allowed broadcasters to charge for their carriage. Just this week Dish customers lost CBS due to a pricing dispute. 

    With no net neutrality I can foresee a time when AT&T customers lose access to Google because of a similar contract dispute. 
    magman1979radarthekat
  • Reply 66 of 174
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,842moderator
    melgross said:
    Well, here we go, just another move by the Trump administration to take more rights away from us. Now, removing these rules, which were hard fought for, will allow ISPs to decide which sites they will carry. One day, if someone at Comcast, Spectrum, AT&T, Verizon and others is a Windows person, we may not be able to get AppleInsider from them. Isn’t that just great?
    How are “rights” being taken away? There’s no right to Internet access or computers, as far as I know. These are products and services.
    I suppose you could say the same about clean air and water.  Yes?  Or the law against murder.  I’d say society can be measured by what it deems basic rights of its citizenry.  Access to clean air, clean water, equal access to employment, to justice, to protection under the law, access without prejudice or privilege to  basic services like electricity, water, sewer, and internet/education are rights government should protect, not turn a blind eye to.
    edited November 2017 clemynxmuthuk_vanalingamapple jockey
  • Reply 67 of 174
    melgross said:

    melgross said:

    mac_128 said:
    melgross said:
    Well, here we go, just another move by the Trump administration to take more rights away from us. Now, removing these rules, which were hard fought for, will allow ISPs to decide which sites they will carry. One day, if someone at Comcast, Spectrum, AT&T, Verizon and others is a Windows person, we may not be able to get AppleInsider from them. Isn’t that just great?
    Agreed. It allows FOX to pay more for bandwidth forcing other less well funded "liberal" voices out of the marketplace. It also allows special interests to invest in news outlets thus giving them the capital to compete on the same level as big media, while effectively silencing poorly funded voices which represent those least able to represent themselves.
    Yeah, right. Fox is a very rich company. They are also owned by a man who is almost a fringe rightest. His company is one of the biggest media companies in the world. He also supports smaller outlets of the same political bent.
    Replace Fox with CNN and you will get the same correct statement. What was your point?
    No, you don’t. Fox isn’t news. And while I know people who don’t like CNN because if it isn’t right wing, it’s left wing, because they don’t understand that there is a basic center position that CNN mostly resides in. If you want to usu CNBC as an example of a lefter position, go ahead.
    CNN isn't news either. And what on Earth are you smoking to claim that CNN is center for you? There is no mass media "center" position in the US today, no matter how hard you want to believe in it. Period. Also, if CNN is so not biased and centered, why there are so many click bait ads onrelated to CNN that occupy 60% of their pages? That is because it is not news, but rather a click bait based website where people of left leaning type go to affirm their biases. I know it because I was one of them.
    edited November 2017 SpamSandwichtallest skil
  • Reply 68 of 174
    clemynxclemynx Posts: 1,552member
    The FCC isn’t listening to what the majority of people want. 

    They are sold to greedy companies. 

    https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2017/06/06/new-mozilla-poll-americans-political-parties-overwhelmingly-support-net-neutrality/
    radarthekat
  • Reply 69 of 174
    gatorguy said:
    melgross said:
    Well, here we go, just another move by the Trump administration to take more rights away from us. Now, removing these rules, which were hard fought for, will allow ISPs to decide which sites they will carry. One day, if someone at Comcast, Spectrum, AT&T, Verizon and others is a Windows person, we may not be able to get AppleInsider from them. Isn’t that just great?
    How are “rights” being taken away? There’s no right to Internet access or computers, as far as I know. These are products and services.
    There's no "right" to electricity either. Would you rather that had no consumer protections?
    You're correct. There is no "right" to electricity. In fact, there are better options than centralized, state-owned or controlled electricity. "Smart grids" that allow people to buy electricity from any number of providers would bring competition to consumers and drive down costs.
    tallest skil
  • Reply 70 of 174
    clemynxclemynx Posts: 1,552member

    melgross said:

    melgross said:

    mac_128 said:
    melgross said:
    Well, here we go, just another move by the Trump administration to take more rights away from us. Now, removing these rules, which were hard fought for, will allow ISPs to decide which sites they will carry. One day, if someone at Comcast, Spectrum, AT&T, Verizon and others is a Windows person, we may not be able to get AppleInsider from them. Isn’t that just great?
    Agreed. It allows FOX to pay more for bandwidth forcing other less well funded "liberal" voices out of the marketplace. It also allows special interests to invest in news outlets thus giving them the capital to compete on the same level as big media, while effectively silencing poorly funded voices which represent those least able to represent themselves.
    Yeah, right. Fox is a very rich company. They are also owned by a man who is almost a fringe rightest. His company is one of the biggest media companies in the world. He also supports smaller outlets of the same political bent.
    Replace Fox with CNN and you will get the same correct statement. What was your point?
    No, you don’t. Fox isn’t news. And while I know people who don’t like CNN because if it isn’t right wing, it’s left wing, because they don’t understand that there is a basic center position that CNN mostly resides in. If you want to usu CNBC as an example of a lefter position, go ahead.
    CNN isn't news either. And what on Earth are you smoking to claim that CNN is center for you? There is no mass media "center" position in the US today, no matter how hard you want to believe in it. Period. Also, if CNN is so not biased and centered, why there are so many click bait ads onrelated to CNN that occupy 60% of their pages? That is because it is not news, but rather a click bait based website where people of left leaning type go to affirm their biases. I know it because I was one of them.
    CNN is absolutely center. 

    Its just that conservatives and republicans almost all now lean to the far right, so you don’t realize that what you call left if actually the center. 

    There is no left and right in the US. There is the far right on one side and normal people on the other, you know people who trust science, education and morals. 
    singularityradarthekatapple jockey
  • Reply 71 of 174
    clemynxclemynx Posts: 1,552member
    It astonishes, and saddens me, to see all the asinine, fucking retarded commentary being posted here even REMOTELY in support of Pai's plan to dismantle net neutrality, and how fucking BLIND all you posters are to the truth of what will happen shortly thereafter...

    Your country is so fucked up, it's fucking itself and doesn't even know it's doing it anymore, congratulations!
    Yes, the US is totally fucked up. Denial of evolution, climate change, human rights. It’s sad. 
    singularityradarthekatapple jockey
  • Reply 72 of 174

    melgross said:
    melgross said:
    Well, here we go, just another move by the Trump administration to take more rights away from us. Now, removing these rules, which were hard fought for, will allow ISPs to decide which sites they will carry. One day, if someone at Comcast, Spectrum, AT&T, Verizon and others is a Windows person, we may not be able to get AppleInsider from them. Isn’t that just great?
    How are “rights” being taken away? There’s no right to Internet access or computers, as far as I know. These are products and services.
    By your idea, we don’t have rights to anything then. As societies become more advanced, and enlightened, more things are decided to be rights. Equal accesss to information is a basic right in a democracy so people who wish to avail themselves of that information can make informed decisions on many hints, such as voting. When that access is denied, because a company decides to not give a services because it st them more to do so, then those people are being denied that equal access. Whether you like Tim or not, that’s a right. 

    I know you want to go back to the 19th century in these things, as do some others here,  it in three years, they loser will be out of office, and things will go back to normal. Heh, the way things are going, he may be gone before that.
    There are a limited number of constitutionally protected rights at the Federal level and you know this. Why use such hyperbolic language which is insulting to both of us?

    There is no "right to equal access to information" unless that information is being provided by the US government. That's not the case. Do you seriously PREFER to have your information provided by the state?

    And then there's this little problem about giving government the power to determine what is "information"... The Left started this whole "fake news" thing, which then the Right took up. I don't want either side telling me what is viable or truthful information.

    Also, where are you getting this idea that I don't like Tim?
    edited November 2017 tallest skil
  • Reply 73 of 174

    melgross said:

    melgross said:

    I trust the ISPs to be neutral and apolitical more than I trust Google, Facebook, and Twitter.

    All those companies have gone pro-censorship. Coming from a country without freedom of speech, that's frightening.
    I don’t trust any of them. That what regulations are for. It’s too bad, but companies do what they do to push their own interest forward. If that happens to coincide with ours, that’s great, but when it doesn’t, then without a regulatory agency to keep them in line, we get predatory monopolies.
    No, we don’t. We get predatory monopolies when competition is suppressed or excluded via legislation and regulations. Every single monopoly in US history came about thanks to political connections, not because the “free market” failed.
    That’s not true either. All the early monopolies began because of a person who started a company with a new technological idea, for example AT&T, or a new idea in business, such as the trusts that Rockefeller came up with to start Standard Oil. Both of these companies, as well as others, started right before the time when these large monopolies were seen to be uncompetitive, and the antitrust laws began to come into place. Please don’t get history backwards.
    That's not correct.

    AT&T was a monopoly due to the largesse of government.

    And with regard to Standard Oil, I have one recommendation which I hope you'll take five minutes to read online, or go the extra step and read the book cited in the article:

    https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/the-misplaced-fear-of-monopoly/
  • Reply 74 of 174
    irnchrizirnchriz Posts: 1,616member
    Just wait till the providers add ‘premium’ product tiers.

    upgrade to premium now so you can have full HD streaming from YouTube/Netflix etc.  Our standard packages will only allow 480p streaming to ensure fair use of our bandwidth.

    want to work from home via vpn? Then you need homeworker premium, only an extra 50 bucks a month.

    pmsl
    edited November 2017 radarthekat
  • Reply 75 of 174
    spice-boyspice-boy Posts: 1,450member
    I can't wait to to see the faces of the anti-net neutrality supporters when monopolies control the internet and you are stuck flying "broad-band coach" the rest of your lives. Of course you can pay more to support you captors bottom line all because you are convinced our government and all that entails is your enemy while it's capitalism run amok that really is. 
    radarthekatapple jockey
  • Reply 76 of 174
    eideard said:
    Sophistry remains the religion of American politics.
    Use of a platitude to make an argument against sophistry is hilarious. 
    edited November 2017 tallest skil
  • Reply 77 of 174
    spice-boyspice-boy Posts: 1,450member
    melgross said:
    Good job FCC.
    Let the competition commence.
    The less regulation,the better.
    You guys really don’t understand this. It’s a shame.

    This kills competition, it doesn’t help it. Compition only works where the playing field is even. This uneven star playing field. 

    Seriously folks, why do you think that other than the ISPs themselves, every other company is against this?
    Melgross, save your breath these libertarian zombies are convince a "free market" will solve all the world's problems as Reagan proposed nearly 40 years ago. They will never benefit of from a free market only those who own the market ever do. Monopolies are bad, history has proven it time and time again. Our government has watch dog agencies for a reason to keep private greed from gaining all the world money and power. You might convince a brick wall sooner than you can talk sense to these usual "great minds". 
    radarthekatapple jockey
  • Reply 78 of 174

    melgross said:

    georgie01 said:
    lkrupp said:

    Net neutrality is an Obama era invention. How did we ever get along all these years without it? Before net neutrality was AI ever blocked by some Windows person at a carrier? It didn’t happen before the government’s power grab and it won’t happen after either even though it is ‘theoretically’ possible. Labeling Internet service as a utility no different than natural gas or electricity so the government could control it was a mistake and I’m happy it’s going away.

    The only restrictions I remember from the days before net neutrality was that websites told me to go away because I was a Mac user and wasn’t running IE as by browser. The government didn’t fix that, competition and innovation did.
    Why don’t you look at this from the perspective of internet capabilities? The internet continues to get faster and more capable and there are increasing opportunities in internet monetisation. The internet has stayed neutral despite commercial interest. There is no reason at all to think the internet will continue to remain neutral. As the capabilities increase the business opportunities increase, and even well-meaning entrepreneurs will seek out opportunities unaware of the effect of their actions. And, of course, there are plenty of people who will happily screw their customers and ruin anything if they can get away with it. As much as I did not like Obama policies in general the idea of net neutrality is vital in keeping the internet the way it is—it might be the one thing Obama’s administration did that I liked!

    The internet is bigger than a commercial venture. While much of it is entertainment, that’s not its philosophy and shouldn’t be. It’s the easy and free distribution of information and communication. It’s more like utility services than it is like a television network.
    That’s simply a utopian view of how things really work. The Internet is only as valuable as its connections and those connections are many millions of servers, databases and other kinds of inputs which must all be paid for somehow. This “free Internet” meme has always been utter nonsense.
    Nobody has really talked about the free internet. We all know that we have to pay for service. The free internet is the information that flows over it, which is often free.

    in most businesses, it’s understood that you don’t compete with your customers. In the case of ISPs, the customers are not only the users, but also the companies that run over their networks. They shouldn’t be competing with them. It’s the old argument of pipes vs services. The problem when ISPs offer the same services as their customers, and they offer crappy services they have problems selling, they do what businesses do if they aren’t prevented from doing it, which is, instead of improving their services, or lowering their prices, which is what capitalistic theory says will happen, they make it more difficult for these competing services to survive, which is what really happens.

    so we end up with crappier services, often at higher prices, once the competition is ruined. But that’s what you want, right?

    Mel, are you aware Elon Musk has planned a series of low-orbit satellites for the sole purpose of providing high-speed Internet access? He's in a good position to do this and as far as I know, this is still going to happen.

    This is exactly the kind of competition (that is to say, unexpected sources of competition that leapfrog the existing technology) that nicely obliterates all of the nonsense being employed to argue against a free market where businesses are able to set rates based on traffic, use, locale, etc.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-musks-next-mission-internet-satellites-1415390062

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/nov/17/elon-musk-satellites-internet-spacex

    https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/04/spacex-internet-satellites-elon-musk.html
    edited November 2017
  • Reply 79 of 174
    melgross said:
    Well, here we go, just another move by the Trump administration to take more rights away from us. Now, removing these rules, which were hard fought for, will allow ISPs to decide which sites they will carry. One day, if someone at Comcast, Spectrum, AT&T, Verizon and others is a Windows person, we may not be able to get AppleInsider from them. Isn’t that just great?
    How are “rights” being taken away? There’s no right to Internet access or computers, as far as I know. These are products and services.
    I suppose you could say the same about clean air and water.  Yes?  Or the law against murder.  I’d say society can be measured by what it deems basic rights of its citizenry.  Access to clean air, clean water, equal access to employment, to justice, to protection under the law, access without prejudice or privilege to  basic services like electricity, water, sewer, and internet/education are rights government should protect, not turn a blind eye to.
    There are laws against murder and anyone can clearly see they are ineffective against a person (or persons) who are intent on carrying out such a plan.

    The constitutionally protected rights the US Federal government legally observes are rather specific and narrow. It would be unwise to cede control over Internet access to the Federal government, lest that government eventually become hostile to whatever your or my particular views are.

    And if the people of the US want their representatives to amend the Constitution to consider "access to information" a constitutionally protected right, then such a thing could be possible. I think it's both absurd and unlikely, but possible. I align with the point of view that products and services are not a "right" and never should be considered so. Forcing others to provide services or products to others amounts to state-sanctioned slavery.
    edited November 2017
  • Reply 80 of 174
    melgross said:

    mac_128 said:
    melgross said:
    Well, here we go, just another move by the Trump administration to take more rights away from us. Now, removing these rules, which were hard fought for, will allow ISPs to decide which sites they will carry. One day, if someone at Comcast, Spectrum, AT&T, Verizon and others is a Windows person, we may not be able to get AppleInsider from them. Isn’t that just great?
    Agreed. It allows FOX to pay more for bandwidth forcing other less well funded "liberal" voices out of the marketplace. It also allows special interests to invest in news outlets thus giving them the capital to compete on the same level as big media, while effectively silencing poorly funded voices which represent those least able to represent themselves.
    Yeah, right. Fox is a very rich company. They are also owned by a man who is almost a fringe rightest. His company is one of the biggest media companies in the world. He also supports smaller outlets of the same political bent.
    Replace Fox with CNN and you will get the same correct statement. What was your point?
    Right... A false equivalency, one lies at least twice as much and pushes a distinct agenda.. You know that but you spouted whataboutism  ...
    Sites like snopes prove this point, but hey words and facts have no meaning now.
    Guess you think that Trump tells the truth just as much as Obama huh, they're "all the same" (sic), one lies 95% of the time the other 1%... they both lie...

    clemynxradarthekatapple jockey
This discussion has been closed.