Trump FCC is doing away with net neutrality,

  • Thread starter randys
  • 262 comments
  • 12,660 views
the one thing that required all internet providers play fair and allow unlimited access to the internet and preventing providers from speeding up one site vs slowing down another OR for that matter making sites UNATTAINABLE.

Better hope your provider gets enough money from Microsoft or Xbox or PS, etc.

Your speeds may very quickly slow down , anything is possible.
 
Last edited:
the one thing that required all internet providers play fair and allow unlimited access to the internet and preventing providers from speeding up one site vs slowing down another OR for that matter making sites UNATTAINABLE.

Better hope your provider gets enough money from Microsoft or Xbox or PS, etc.

Your speeds may very quickly , slow down , anything is possible.

Well, at least, I hope that paying extra for the PS+ service will guarantee us some kind of negotiation between Sony and IP providers...
 
Not yet it's not. The FCC will vote on the proposal by chairman Ajit Pai on December 14th.
Formality I fear. He put "his" people on there and the one thing we have learned about that is nothing good happens for consumers and everything good for corporations.

Not a political statement by me, a fact.

I realize this could become political and you dont want that and I use this board to help me enjoy my game, the LAST thing I want is for him to interfere with one of the few enjoyments I still have.

So this is my last comment on it. Thanks , I appreciate the board.

Let me even be productive, everybody here please call your representatives to let them know this is INSANE and should not happen. Probably wont stop it, but could.
 
Formality I fear. He put "his" people on there and the one thing we have learned about that is nothing good happens for consumers and everything good for corporations.
That rather depends on the corporations in question - don't forget that most corporations are also consumers of internet service providers, and a good many will be significantly harmed if not all data transmission is equal.

Imagine Netflix, or Amazon. They will have to pay more to have priority traffic to their sites and services, rather than the ISP's own streaming (like BT owns the BT channels) or shopping services. That may mean charging more, or going out of business.

And unless Google is your ISP, Google may not be your ISP's preferred search engine any more.

It's not quite as simple as "corporations bad".
 
That rather depends on the corporations in question - don't forget that most corporations are also consumers of internet service providers, and a good many will be significantly harmed if not all data transmission is equal.

Imagine Netflix, or Amazon. They will have to pay more to have priority traffic to their sites and services, rather than the ISP's own streaming (like BT owns the BT channels) or shopping services. That may mean charging more, or going out of business.

And unless Google is your ISP, Google may not be your ISP's preferred search engine any more.

It's not quite as simple as "corporations bad".
No, but they are bad and the reason they are, the reason the whole Wall Street model is bad is by definition, a corporations charter specifically requires that said corp (this applies to all of them, it is in their charter, I know, I have one) must maximize profit regardless of anything, where and when it can to maximize dividend returns to shareholders. Public or private.

It was a mistake to go down this road way back when. We could just as easily do everything we want to do without that type of set up.

End of commentary...thanks for everybody's interest in this important topic.
 
Vote for dumb politicians, get dumb prizes.

Your vote, or abstaining from voting, have consequences America. Maybe more people will vote for pro-consumer candidates when they have to pay add-on prices for their monthly internet package to use YouTube.

Bunch of suckers.
 
I feel like this should've gone in the current events tab, but why is there no link to an article about this from OP?
 
it will take an idiot or uninformed person to disagree, and there are plenty of those.

I guess I'm an idiot then, because I disagree.

the one thing that required all internet providers play fair and allow unlimited access to the internet and preventing providers from speeding up one site vs slowing down another OR for that matter making sites UNATTAINABLE.

Except... of course... the demands of the consumer.... which are, naturally, the largest and most effective economic force for achieving that.
 
@Famine, should this merge with the existing Net Neutrality thread - especially given that this thread seems to explicitly blame Trump despite the issue demonstrably existing long before?
 
I keep hearing about the Net Neutrality yet the whole thing of ISP blocking sites and apps, slowing down pages, ripping off customers and making everything overpriced seems to be nothing new from a perspective of a person living in the Gulf States in the Middle East.
 
No, but they are bad and the reason they are, the reason the whole Wall Street model is bad is by definition, a corporations charter specifically requires that said corp (this applies to all of them, it is in their charter, I know, I have one) must maximize profit regardless of anything, where and when it can to maximize dividend returns to shareholders. Public or private.

It was a mistake to go down this road way back when. We could just as easily do everything we want to do without that type of set up.

End of commentary...thanks for everybody's interest in this important topic.
You do realize, especially in this day and age of instant communication, that most corporations maximize profits by providing better services and products to their customers for prices that the customers are willing to pay. So often in the discussions words like "maximize profits" are akin to profanity when, in fact, maximizing profits means I pay far less money for goods and services today, in real dollars, than I ever did before.
 
I feel like this should've gone in the current events tab, but why is there no link to an article about this from OP?

http://www.zdnet.com/article/trumps-fcc-announces-plans-to-kill-net-neutrality/

I think we can all agree that doing away with net neutrality is bad
it will take an idiot or uninformed person to disagree
I guess I'm an idiot then, because I disagree.
I don't understand. How is doing away with net neutrality good? :confused:
 
So this is my last comment on it.

So then why this comment?

No, but they are bad and the reason they are, the reason the whole Wall Street model is bad is by definition, a corporations charter specifically requires that said corp (this applies to all of them, it is in their charter, I know, I have one) must maximize profit regardless of anything, where and when it can to maximize dividend returns to shareholders. Public or private.

It was a mistake to go down this road way back when. We could just as easily do everything we want to do without that type of set up.

Which ends with, unsurprisingly,

End of commentary...thanks for everybody's interest in this important topic.
 
DK
Because of the holy and inerrant free market, that totally can't be manipulated by cartels.
Regulation isn't immune to manipulation either. I don't see why a business shouldn't be able to do as they please. If people are worried about the outcome, nothing is stopping them from getting together and pressuring the market to meet their needs.
 
I'm conflicted on this. The biggest issue I see is where there's an area that's completely monopolized by one ISP, which means you can't switch if you get fed up with what another ISP is doing. Where I live, my only choice is Comcast since there's no fiber runs near me meaning I can't have Google Fiber. So if Comcast decides to be even worse than they currently are, my options are to go without internet or move. It really shouldn't be like that in a free market economy.

I'm sure some regulation, somewhere, makes it possible for a company to completely monopolize an area with zero competition but I don't know what it is. If that was resolved and consumers had a choice, I'd be all for repealing net neutrality since the better company would ultimately win out with more customers. If there's a monopoly then customers have no choice, especially in this day and age when it's almost required to have internet.
 
http://www.zdnet.com/article/trumps-fcc-announces-plans-to-kill-net-neutrality/



I don't understand. How is doing away with net neutrality good? :confused:

I'm conflicted on this. The biggest issue I see is where there's an area that's completely monopolized by one ISP, which means you can't switch if you get fed up with what another ISP is doing. Where I live, my only choice is Comcast since there's no fiber runs near me meaning I can't have Google Fiber. So if Comcast decides to be even worse than they currently are, my options are to go without internet or move. It really shouldn't be like that in a free market economy.

I'm sure some regulation, somewhere, makes it possible for a company to completely monopolize an area with zero competition but I don't know what it is. If that was resolved and consumers had a choice, I'd be all for repealing net neutrality since the better company would ultimately win out with more customers. If there's a monopoly then customers have no choice, especially in this day and age when it's almost required to have internet.

So is it better to help people cope with the scenario where there is one ISP available? Or is it better to cause people to clamor more aggressively for choice?

It kinda comes down to whether you think your internet bill is your water bill or your cell phone bill. If it's your water bill, you expect it to be heavily regulated, to get it from one source, to have no options, to pay a price that is dictated from on high, get no customer service, no improvements in technology, and be free of any kind of discrimination, advertising, targeting, throttling, or manipulation of any sort.

If it's your cell phone bill you expect it to come from many sources, which you will shop between and choose based on customer service, improvements in technology, corporate bloat ad-ons, throttling, and manipulation.

Where I am right now, I have a few options for high speed internet:
- Comcast
- Centurylink (this is DSL, in my case it is fiber)
- Wireless providers such as sprint, t-mobile, ATT, Verizon
- T1 (I think there are a number of actual ISPs that service this)
- Satellite (Again, I think there are ISPs to choose from here)

I do not have access to U-verse. Right now in my house in terms of high speed internet, I actually have and use Comcast, Centurylink, Sprint, and T-mobile - each of which is an independent broadband pipe. Where my parents live, it's pretty much wireless, T1, and Satellite for them. They have a T1 line, I don't know who their ISP is.
 
The regulation of interstate commerce is necessary imo, I'm more concerned with how agencies such as the FCC are formed and overseen. I'd be interested in seeing a true free market place but that has not and never will happen so we are left with regulatory economics, it's how it's conducted that matters.

We've had monopolies and businesses so large there is no competition, specialized services such as big pharma and so on. The Federal government deals with all of these cases considering the general welfare of the country, it's not always as simple as people think, at the moment that applies to "no net neutrality is bad because my bill will go up and sites will be censored", the verdict is still out.

I'm not worried either way and consider this issue a puffed up internet liberal super warrior cause, the sky is not falling ;)
 
Examples or retract.
Public works.
Tobacco.
Oil.
whatever else I'm too lazy to look, there have been monopolies in the U.S. why else would we have antitrust acts?

lulwat? :lol:

Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce. The source of congressional power to regulate interstate commerce is the Commerce Clause in Article I, Section 8. This power is viewed as consisting of 3 categories of regulatory authority: (1) the power to regulate the channels of interstate commerce, (2) the power to regulate the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, and (3) the power to regulate local activities that have a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce. While most of the current members of the Supreme Court recognize the commerce power itself as including all three categories, Justices Scalia and Thomas do not. The third Commere Clause category is seen by Justice Scalia as justified by the combination of the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause (a grant of power to Congress to employ all means that are plainly adapted to an enumerated end) and not based on the Commerce Clause alone. Justice Thomas is the only member of the Court who views category 3 legislation as beyond the power of Congress.

A. Category One - Regulation of the Use of the Channels of Interstate Commerce:

1. What is a channel of interstate commerce? These include navigable waterways, airspace, highways, railroad tracks, telephone lines and the internet - these are the conduits through which interstate commerce travels.
 
Public works.
Tobacco.
Oil.
whatever else I'm too lazy to look, there have been monopolies in the U.S. why else would we have antitrust acts?

Actual examples or retract.

lulwat? :lol:

Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce. The source of congressional power to regulate interstate commerce is the Commerce Clause in Article I, Section 8. This power is viewed as consisting of 3 categories of regulatory authority: (1) the power to regulate the channels of interstate commerce, (2) the power to regulate the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, and (3) the power to regulate local activities that have a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce. While most of the current members of the Supreme Court recognize the commerce power itself as including all three categories, Justices Scalia and Thomas do not. The third Commere Clause category is seen by Justice Scalia as justified by the combination of the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause (a grant of power to Congress to employ all means that are plainly adapted to an enumerated end) and not based on the Commerce Clause alone. Justice Thomas is the only member of the Court who views category 3 legislation as beyond the power of Congress.

A. Category One - Regulation of the Use of the Channels of Interstate Commerce:

1. What is a channel of interstate commerce? These include navigable waterways, airspace, highways, railroad tracks, telephone lines and the internet - these are the conduits through which interstate commerce travels.

Oh I'm familiar with the interstate commerce clause. Answer a few questions for me:

1) Do you know what "regulate" means in the interstate commerce clause? Not what you probably think.
2) Why is "interstate" commerce different from "intrastate" commerce?
3) Do you think that net neutrality suddenly should not apply if your ISP is wholly within your state - such as a company which is fractured off specifically for the purpose of being intrastate?
4) Where does the interstate commerce clause stop? This is the real problem with the way the supreme court has implemented it. For example, as it was broadly interpreted for the ACA, intrastate commerce covers government regulation of your sex life. Don't believe me? For the ACA, the supreme court found that inactivity (such as not buying healthcare) is interstate commerce because it affects the market in another state. In Nevada, prostitution is legal. If you choose to have sex, or not have sex, you affect demand for prostitution in Nevada. Your sexual activity or inactivity is now under the control of interstate commerce via the federal government. If you buy their argument they can now dictate how often, and with whom, you have sex.
5) Why on earth do you think it's necessary?

In short, the interstate commerce clause is laughably broken, and has been abused for decades. It doesn't give the power to control, but render "regular" interstate commerce. It's pretty arbitrary when it comes to geographical boundaries. Your ISP can dodge it, unless you buy the activity = inactivity argument (which is absolute nonsense).

TL;DR - lolwut?
 
So is it better to help people cope with the scenario where there is one ISP available? Or is it better to cause people to clamor more aggressively for choice?

It kinda comes down to whether you think your internet bill is your water bill or your cell phone bill. If it's your water bill, you expect it to be heavily regulated, to get it from one source, to have no options, to pay a price that is dictated from on high, get no customer service, no improvements in technology, and be free of any kind of discrimination, advertising, targeting, throttling, or manipulation of any sort.

If it's your cell phone bill you expect it to come from many sources, which you will shop between and choose based on customer service, improvements in technology, corporate bloat ad-ons, throttling, and manipulation.

Where I am right now, I have a few options for high speed internet:
- Comcast
- Centurylink (this is DSL, in my case it is fiber)
- Wireless providers such as sprint, t-mobile, ATT, Verizon
- T1 (I think there are a number of actual ISPs that service this)
- Satellite (Again, I think there are ISPs to choose from here)

I do not have access to U-verse. Right now in my house in terms of high speed internet, I actually have and use Comcast, Centurylink, Sprint, and T-mobile - each of which is an independent broadband pipe. Where my parents live, it's pretty much wireless, T1, and Satellite for them. They have a T1 line, I don't know who their ISP is.

People should clamor for more choice, but I'm not sure that's even possible. Like I said, I don't know what regulations are in place, but I'm guessing there's something that prevents additional ISP's to be available in the little town I live in. My best guess is that either the state or the town itself won't allow fiber runs in the area.

When I lived in Michigan I had exactly one choice of TV and internet provider too. I'd sent numerous letters to AT&T, along with many of my neighbors, to try and get UVerse where we were. Every time they said it wasn't possible.

I think until the market is actually open, repealing net neutrality could have a negative impact on a ton of people that require internet. If Comcast suddenly decides my $100 a month isn't enough for me to connect into Citrix to do my job, then I could really have an issue since I need internet at home for after-hours support. Is it likely they'll do that? Probably not, but Comcast is so shady when it comes to business practices there is a chance.

I'm not saying keeping net neutrality around is good, but I think the entire way the internet market is in the US needs to be looked at before we start making massive changes to it.
 
People should clamor for more choice, but I'm not sure that's even possible. Like I said, I don't know what regulations are in place, but I'm guessing there's something that prevents additional ISP's to be available in the little town I live in. My best guess is that either the state or the town itself won't allow fiber runs in the area.

Yup, that's probably true. There are other options too, such as:

https://arstechnica.com/information...isps-bring-wireless-internet-to-12-us-states/

City councils can be pressured by the local population. We're doing that right now in my city, we just recalled one seat, and there has been a bitter fight based on various local interests in order to get some city decisions changed.

If Comcast decided you needed to pay more for your citrix connection, then if other people are in your boat (and it affects companies as well, because it's for your work) they will receive pressure. They can tell you to pound sand until your town allows other options... which it very well may if that's what they're hearing from the population, but that's not good business. You have alternatives, you can get a portable t-mobile hotspot (or sprint or verizon or whatever) in your house and connect that way. You could also go DSL or T1. You just don't like those options as much. We shouldn't be enacting sweeping federal regulations to prevent people from spending $50/mo, or to keep people from having to choose a slightly slower internet connection. Especially when the choices and pressures in that area are to make the actual needed changes and improvements.

We definitely should not be enacting the wrong federal regulations in order to bandaid a problem caused by some stubborn city councils.
 
I think until the market is actually open, repealing net neutrality could have a negative impact on a ton of people that require internet. If Comcast suddenly decides my $100 a month isn't enough for me to connect into Citrix to do my job, then I could really have an issue since I need internet at home for after-hours support. Is it likely they'll do that? Probably not, but Comcast is so shady when it comes to business practices there is a chance.
Your instinct here is right. We all understand high speed internet is essentially required to participate in everyday life now, and that the idea competitors will just lay new lines of cable is absurd. It'll be either paying up for the one ISP in your area, or making do with inadequate and/or much more expensive substitutes like early 2000s DSL or mobile data sticks. This is why economics discussions here always become pages and of arguing about the US Constitution and simple examples like buying frozen yogurt if ice cream prices are too high. The conversation gets steered to easily argued and defensible Econ 101 principles because talking about how the free market means there's 6 brands of underwear to choose from at Walmart is easier than trying to convince people the natural monopoly ISP that's always gouged them won't just increasingly gouge consumers or smaller firms if they can pay for tiered access.

It's probably not going to be an issue for Citrix, Paypal, Amazon, Google/Youtube, Netflix, etc.
Netflix's CEO himself said it:
"It's not narrowly important to us because we're big enough to get the deals we want," "It's an issue that would have been more important to "the Netflix of 10 years ago,"
Netflix might cost a bit more and Google will spend more on Youtube but those companies are entrenched and will have the resources to pay up. The problem is it would probably completely stop Youtube in 2005, and we don't know which sites/services in their infancy today would have otherwise ended up like Youtube or Netflix under net neutrality. Same thing with online gaming, EA, Activision, and Valve will be fine, but the 2009 version of League of Legends, the 2017 version of PUBG, or the 2003 version of Steam might have been dead in the water without net neutrality.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure what you are trying to prove with your demands but anyway.

International Harvester.

https://intelligentfanatics.com/2017/05/04/international-harvester-company-rise-fall-monopoly/ 85% market share is not a monopoly.

Standard Oil.
There are plenty more.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil Standard oil peaked at 85%, also not a monopoly.

Your instinct here is right. We all understand high speed internet is essentially required to participate in everyday life now, and that the idea competitors will just lay new lines of cable is absurd.

You're not talking about high speed internet (which you probably have in your pocket). You're talking about residential internet with latencies less than 600 ms, and speeds over a few mbps with a larger data cap before throttling than typical wireless carriers. Because if you're talking about anything else, laying new lines of cable is not needed.

You do not need the above to participate in everyday life now.

It'll be either paying up for the one ISP in your area, or making do with inadequate and/or more expensive substitutes like early 2000s DSL or mobile data sticks.

Define "inadequate". Just because the alternatives aren't as good doesn't mean they are inadequate for "participating in everyday life". You're telling me that a person with high speed internet on their smartphone and 1.5 mbps wired to their house can't participate in everyday life because they can't endlessly stream netflix? I have no less than 5 modalities for high speed internet to my residence, 3 of which I actually use (40mbps, 40mbps, and about 20 mbps). Yet somehow I'm beholden to a single monopoly that must be federally regulated?

Or maybe I'm unusual. Maybe my parents, who have a T1 line and smartphones, are simply unable to participate in everyday life.
 
Define "inadequate". Just because the alternatives aren't as good doesn't mean they are inadequate for "participating in everyday life". You're telling me that a person with high speed internet on their smartphone and 1.5 mbps wired to their house can't participate in everyday life because they can't endlessly stream netflix?

1.5Mbps isn't necessarily "inadequate" but it doesn't qualify as broadband in the US definition. It's arguable that to benefit from modern commerce and information services broadband is a minimum requirement. Over half of US households already fall beneath that 4Mbps threshold - not what one would expect from a reasonably technically advanced nation.

If the new rules mean that US households can have their services choked even further then that has to be a bad thing.
 
Back