DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Net neutrality to be repealed

why?

this is what the majority of the country wanted when they voted for Trump and the GOP.

i dunno why everyone is all upset. they made no secret that they were trying to do this, and people still voted for them.

sit back and enjoy it.no need for everyone to get upset, this is what they voted for.

Ha, I know what you're saying. I've been clear that I didn't vote for either of the top two. I always wondered when the blindness of the massive voting populace would begin to massively, tangibly screw us over, and I think it's starting.

Btw, I think this appears to be a bi-partisan issue.

Doesn't seem like it is to me. I was going to write my congressmen, but then I see their twitter and they're all in-support of net neutrality. All three are democrats (two senators and a representative).


The two democrats on the FCC Board of Commissioners are all for the Net Neutrality regulation. The three republicans want to appeal it.

From what I read, Suzanne Collins is the only republican congressmen who has come out in support of it.



I didn't vote for Trump (I didn't vote for Crooked Hillary either, I voted for Pot-Smokin', Mr. Allepo himself, Gary Johnson). But I did vote for a republican representative and I've voted for the republican senators.

I will say, while I don't think I'd ever register as a democrat (and I am a registered republican (to vote for Kasich in the primary)), this is a make-or-break issue for me. I've been reaching my boiling point on some issues, and I really don't like the way the government is going. And this one is a really big deal to me, so if the democrats were going to turn me, now would be the time). We'll see how it turns out of course.

But someone said both sides wanted the same thing, and I haven't seen that. I've seen democrats come out in support of net neutrality, and I've seen most republicans saying nothing.

The FCC is expected to repeal its net neutrality rules today, in a sweeping act of deregulation

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-...f-deregulation/

They have gone through the motions, ignored public input and outrage, and today they will kill the net as we know it.

Watching this live today with my users. They are have having a total meltdown. I hope there are riots.

Didn't they just escort all the citizens out of the room?

What?

I read that a bunch of protesters had to leave the room prior to them announcing their vote.

Oh. I just meant that my users are having a total meltdown. I'm inclined to let them have that meltdown. Instead of telling them that it will be ok.

Im surprised I haven't already read about lawsuits. One has to think that there are several just waiting to be filed.

The FCC has reversed a 2015 rule that could change how you access and pay for internet service

The FCC voted to remove the 2015 Open Internet Order, which governed internet service providers as communication service providers.
It required internet service providers to treat all internet traffic as equal.
Now telecommunications and cable companies will be allowed to price various online activities that use bandwidth at different rates.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/14/fcc-reverses-open-internet-order-governing-net-neutrality.html

Vote was 3-2

Our cable company, Cox Communications put out this statement on their site today.

Cox is committed to an open Internet experience for our customers. This means the following:

No blocking of legal content
No throttling
No unfair discrimination
Transparency in our customer practices
We stand by an open Internet because it’s good for our business, and our customers expect and deserve it.

In other words the wealthiest among us will be able to access banking and investment trading faster than everyone else.

I have Cox too.

I've also come to not believe a single word they say.

Except "Balance due by December 25th".

YES Aint amurica great!

Federal Communications Commission repeals net neutrality rules

December 14, 2017

By David Shepardson

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Federal Communications Commission voted along party lines on Thursday to repeal landmark 2015 rules aimed at ensuring a free and open internet, setting up a court fight over a move that could recast the digital landscape.

The approval of FCC Chairman Ajit Pai's proposal marks a victory for internet service providers like AT&T Inc, Comcast Corp and Verizon Communications Inc and hands them power over what content consumers can access.

Democrats, Hollywood and companies like Google parent Alphabet Inc and Facebook Inc had urged Pai, a Republican appointed by U.S. President Donald Trump, to keep the Obama-era rules barring service providers from blocking, slowing access to or charging more for certain content.

Consumer advocates and trade groups representing content providers have planned a legal challenge aimed at preserving those rules.

The meeting was evacuated before the vote for about 10 minutes due to an unspecified security threat, and resumed after sniffer dogs checked the room.

FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn, a Democrat, said in the run-up to the vote that Republicans were “handing the keys to the Internet” to a “handful of multi-billion dollar corporations.”

Pai has argued that the 2015 rules were heavy handed and stifled competition and innovation among service providers.

"The internet wasn’t broken in 2015. We weren’t living in a digital dystopia. To the contrary, the internet is perhaps the one thing in American society we can all agree has been a stunning success," he said on Thursday.

The FCC voted 3-2 to repeal the rules.

Consumers are unlikely to see immediate changes resulting from the rule change, but smaller startups worry the lack of restrictions could drive up costs or lead to their content being blocked.

Internet service providers say they will not block or throttle legal content but that they may engage in paid prioritization. They say consumers will see no change and argue that the largely unregulated internet functioned well in the two decades before the 2015 order.

Link

In case you were wondering, it's no longer "We, the people..." It's "We, the corporate interests..." Has been since the 80's.

Okay, I don't necessarily agree with the overall decision, but I will lay out the counter-point to this, because you never-ever see it online.

The original reason that the 2015 order was put into place was that online providers were considering putting in a considerable investment to provide infrastructure to boost internet speeds for select services. But the original "intent" of the internet was that all infrastructure would be accessible for all information and none would get special treatment over another.

The counterpoint to that is: Is having a super-highway that people would have to pay extra for really a bad thing? If I want to watch Netflix and don't mind paying an extra $15 a month to my internet provider so that I can stream 4K networked videos at a high rate of speed without having to worry about a connection disruption, does it really matter that a guy down the street watching a conspiracy video on InfoWars will never get that kind of network speed on a standard connection?

I think part of the argument against it has sort of turned into this "boogeyman" where they say ISPs will start blocking content or dramatically reduce internet speeds of websites that don't pony up cash or whatnot, but like the quote above is saying, that wasn't even a problem when they put the rules in place in 2015. If companies did start doing that, then there is still the pressure of direct competition. If one company wants to severely limit the download speeds of Youtube for whatever reason, then everyone is just going to dump them and go to an ISP that doesn't.

What this does do is give communications companies financial incentives to build faster internet connections for select services. Think of it like a private toll road that wouldn't of built otherwise. The traffic on other streets will likely remain the same, but now there's a faster option for people willing to pay for it.

Yes, that would be the exact consumer response in a supply/demand economy in a free market system. Problem is? We don't live in one. Competition has been squelched, lobbied out of existence and limited to the number of providers by the municipalities. Instead of competition, large providers have carved up the country. Some areas only have one provider, about 30%. Other areas (about 37%) only have two. If you're interested in reading more about it you can check this out:

Link

I work for one of the large providers. The corporation's political division is always in our face about contributing (they encourage payroll deductions, for managers it's compulsory) to their lobbying efforts, local, state & national. It's a huge division with deep political ties on both sides of the aisle. They work very, very hard to set their agendas.

Politicians are temporary, and looking to line their pockets while furthering their upward mobility. Corporations know that. The country is run by special interest groups. It's that simple. An unprecedented number of retired politicians now go into lobbying after their terms. It's extremely lucrative. Government salaries can't compete. Again, if you're interested, check out Saving Capitalism by Robert Reich. There's the book, and also a documentary on Netflix.

Like I said, I don't completely agree with the decision. I don't know that giving Communication companies carte-blanche over everything will always work out for the best. They don't have the best track record.

But it can also be argued that there is not a lot of incentive for significant improvement either.

They're no longer service providers, they're commodity brokers.

That would $15 on top of whatever you're paying for your Netflix subscription, though I'm sure you know that.

The problem is that it is likely we'll have a menu essentially. Want to access Facebook, that's $2.99/month. Foxnew.com, that's another 2.99, CNN, yep 2.99 more. Dawgtalkers - well until the Browns are good again that's free Email, that's $4.99. Instant messaging, that's $4.99.

It'll also potentially turn into a bidding war - Comcast (for example) could sign a deal with Pandora, so you cannot use your iTunes or Spotify (or they could slow down the pipeline to those services to be so slow they don't funcation well). I could go on and on.

Much like everything else these days, the government would rather just throw things away than fix them. If they were anywhere near competent, they'd come up with a creative way to get the best of both worlds without selling out to corporations. Then again, they make their money selling their souls to corporations, so there's no incentive to do the right thing for anyone but themselves.

That's the boogeyman argument though. Could it technically happen? Yeah, maybe. But will it likely happen and did it happen before things were regulated? No.

And while, some places may only have one ISP, if they started charging $150 for for all a-la-cart options, then new competition WILL be found. Heck, just look at Cable TV. After years of poor service, Dish TVs, Internet TVs and all kinds of other options became available. If Broadband ISPs want to price themselves out of the market because they technically "can", it'll just mean more people would jump to other options because they would become more cost effective. Honestly, what's stopping an ISP from charging you $150 a month for general service right now?



Yes, I realize that. And that's sort of the point. Right now, if my internet cuts out in the middle of my Netflix viewing because the 10 guys down the street are pirating software downloads and the 10 politicians up the road are streaming porn, then I just have to deal with it. The Cable company knows that I would probably pay a premium to watch Netflix on a dedicated connection, but they can't do that because they are required by law to use that connection for everything.

At least now, they could build that dedicated pipeline for me, charge me extra for it, and then I get the better service I'm paying for. If anything the connection for everyone else, might actually improve, because anyone using the general line for Netflix isn't bogging down that data pipeline anymore.

That's a fair reply. I guess I'm more if a cynic than you are, I expect them to do that

Regarding options for cable TV - I live in a major metropolitan area and have 2 options, I wouldn't call that much competition, but your point is made.

There's few options here.

From a ground zero standpoint, on my online games today, my users have been having a meltdown about this. Absolute hysteria.

Seems there was a bomb threat at that hearing.

Maybe the push back will work.

I doubt it since money rules all.

But I know darn well this isn't over yet.

They underestimate the power of internet addiction.

Who knows?

I know my "son of a millionaire" cousin was all worked up today.

It seems his internet service price was going up. "Just got my internet bill today. It increased. Was that due to the republicans repealing net neutrality?"



By the way, he's in Seattle. As liberal as they come. He doesn't have to worry about money. (same guy that went on a cussing rampage after Trump got elected. He was worried about how he'd be able to even go into work the next morning)

Oh, but upon questioning, he did admit that his "promotional rate" for internet was over, so he expected the price increase.

This is what I experience with my family. Especially those out west. Everyone on my mom's side is in the millionaire category. 1 of them, an uncle,and the parent of the spoiled brat I spoke of, are all for others, OTHERS, paying more in taxes.

Plus, that family looks down on us "poor midwesterners" that don't have smoked salmon for dinner 5 times a week.

They consider themselves "elite", yet don't want to pay more in taxes. Hmmmm........they want others to pay more though.

The liberal elite. My brother, love him, is the same way. He's in Denver. Never had a job other than a gov't. job.

1. What if the other ISP does the same thing?
2. What if there is no other ISP to switch to?

I agree, competition is good for the consumer, problem is, there is very little or no competition. People are so hooked on the internet, that it is not like they can boycott. The ISP know this. We're stuck with whatever crap plans they want to throw at us.



Comcast said NN doersn't effect their plans to upgrade.

comcast:

Quote on page 16 of this link


It would be nice if competition happened, but I don't see the big ISPs allowing it. If a little guy tries to enter the market, they will squash them like a bug.

No, it'll be months before impact is felt from this.

This article is a little lengthy, but goes into what happens next
NN repealed, what happens next?

TL;DR This thing is going to be tied up in courts for months. ISPs will likely lay low in the mean time to avoid causing more public outrage.

Yeah, my point was my millionaire's son cousin was even propagating this. And then to admit "well, yeah, my promo price was over."

Typical of some.

Same guy that was crying about, after the election "how can I go into work tomorrow knowing Trump was elected? How can I face my co workers?"

He's a guy that lives off daddy and appeases himself by acting like he cares about others, when in fact, he's all about him.

As far as competition goes, people will find a way if it gets too out of hand.

I have been without cable TV for quite a while now, before it was cool to "cut the cable". I saw that I had an opportunity to save quite a bit of money each month. Some folks looked at me like I had 2 heads (you don't watch TV!?). Now it's pretty common.

If cost to maintain an internet subscription gets out of hand, then people will find a way.

And my counter-point to this is: What was stopping those same companies from jacking up the current rates to $150 a month? It wasn't net-neutrality.


Because that's their choice. Chances are possible that things might not change at all for many companies, as they already have effective business models. There were no net-neutrality rules until 2015, yet somehow everyone got reasonable service before then.



Or on the contrary, the little guys might actually be the ones to offer the "superhighway" connection packages. Like you said, Comcast doesn't plan to upgrade. Probably because it's going to take a substantial investment to lay the works for a newer system, and they are already currently maintaining a working framework. A newer company may want to come in and build their own system specifically geared for specific uses, and not have to worry about sharing it with everyone. This would involve a lot more risk (Upfront cost/unknown user-base) that an established company is a lot more hesitant to take, but a start-up might be willing to go for.

There are. This thing will be tied up in courts for months. With midterm elections next year, congress will try to look like they care and possibly do something.

Can't wait to see how the Trumpians spin this into a victory for the people...

Sorry Eve. This is probably going to hit you harder than most.

They could've. Typ[ically you don't see a huge increase all at once for existing services aside from a introductory price expiring. I've typically seen a small increase every year. Looking at the cell phone data plans, the big 3 have pretty much been in synch with their plans. I wouldn't expect to find an ISP to stray too far from the others.

I do admit, part of me is curious to see what post NN plans would look like. I do agree there some boogeyman arguments out there(I saw someone mention ISP would charge per tweet). I would definitely prefer open competition over government regulations. But we're dealing with something you can't really boycott, so the consumer has less power in this case.

glad conservatives are cool with the GOP selling us out.

and of course we got posters making excuses for their corporate slave masters.

"In Portugal, with no net neutrality, internet providers are starting to split the net into packages," argues a California congressman -- retweeting a stunning graphic. An anonymous reader quotes BoingBoing's Cory Doctorow:

"Since 2006, Net Neutrality activists have been warning that a non-Neutral internet will be an invitation to ISPs to create "plans" where you have to choose which established services you can access, shutting out new entrants to the market and allowing the companies with the deepest pockets to permanently dominate the internet... the Portuguese non-neutral ISP MEO has mistaken a warning for a suggestion, and offers a series of "plans" for its mobile data service where you pay €5 to access a handful of messaging services, €5 more to use social media; and €5 more for video-streaming services"


Get used to it Murica we're next. You're GOP friends voted for this to happen. Thank them the next time you bump into them.

Look no further. Google... "Non Net Neutral ISP in Portugal"

Net neutrality: Donald Trump Jr suggests people who want to keep net neutrality don't understand it

Andrew Griffin, The Independent • December 15, 2017

People who are upset about net neutrality probably don't understand it, Donald Trump's son has suggested.

Donald Trump Jr said in a tweet that he would "pay good money to see all those people complaining about" the repeal of net neutrality actually explain it. The same tweet misspelt net neutrality and wrongly suggested that the chairman of the FCC, which decided to repeal the protections, had been appointed by Barack Obama.

Mr Trump's tweet posted as protests swirled over the FCC's decision to revoke regulations that force internet companies to treat all internet traffic equally. The widely-expected decision could fundamentally change how the internet works, and campaigners argue that it will allow service providers to introduce new kinds of charges and restrictions on their customers.

"I would pay good money to see all those people complaining about Obama’s FCC chairman voting to repeal #NetNeutality actually explain it in detail," the full tweet read. "I’d also bet most hadn’t heard of it before this week. #outrage"

The post has been shared more than 5,000 times at the time of publication. But its divisiveness was seen in the fact it received far more replies, with 19,000 people commenting beneath it, largely to criticise the president's son.

The FCC chairman, Arjit Pai, was appointed to his current role by Donald Trump in the first days of his presidency. Doing so was taken as a move in support of the repeal of net neutrality laws, since it was one of Mr Pai's keenest policy commitments.

He was first appointed to the commission by Barack Obama, who was forced to appoint a Republican as a result of rules that require the opposition to have a representative on the board.

The introduction and then repeal of net neutrality laws have been a topic of intense discussion for years. The current laws were added in 2015 – a move that led to millions of complaints and messages of support.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/net-neutrality-donald-trump-jr-085600835.html


Dummy Jr. wants to edumacate youins that's not too smert bout's the interwebs.

I think this sucked. The false account rigging. Internet and EPA and the list goes on.

I welcome the lawsuits. Hope this gets reversed. Pretty shameful if you had any scruples.

Death threats were made? Really?

Wow. A lot of people have no idea how the internet works.

When you buy (rent) an internet circuit of any type, it comes with an SLA (service level agreement). This is a contract saying that if you pay for 100M down and 100M up, you have that speed. Most business contracts come with a guaranteed speed, and a burst speed. In other words, you can push your circuit from 100M to 200M or the agreed upon burst speed for a period of time. You will also pay for that burst, if overused.

Internet traffic has always been prioritized by it content. Voice, for example, has the highest priority, as you can't drop voice packets and resend them and have a voice call be properly heard. Video is the next highest, as video sends packets on the part of the video that changes, and not the entire picture. Regular web pages and email have the lowest priorities, as that content can be sent in chunks as the page is pulling up, or when bandwidth is available.

The internet is not suffering from a lack of bandwidth. The worst bandwidth is at the home end. With improvements that constantly go on, there will probably never be a lack of bandwidth. 10 gigabit circuits are now the norm in most companies with large servers or databases. 100 gigabit is not far being in place across the country. There is almost more bandwidth than we can use.

The internet is not owned by any one country or company. To truly restrict access to any one certain company, you'd have to get their local carrier to agree to restrict their service. That conflicts with their SLAs. As long as companies are willing to pay for faster service, the internet providers will have faster service.