Hello there,

This is very important and could affect sites like this one.
The vote yesterday as i understand it was to remove the rules that had been in place for so long. That would give some large companies the right to censor what sites we can get to.
I think we need to do something about this, like ask Congress to overturn that decision.
Comments?

 

The recent action merely reverses a policy put in place by the previous administration. That power grab was an attempt to put the Internet under government control instead of letting market forces continue to guide its evolution as they have from the beginning.

It comes down to a simple question: Who would you rather have run the internet, all of us spending our dollars where we choose, or a bunch of bureaucrats in Washington? Seems clear to me.

 

And was it ever law? Or was it yet another executive order or FCC mandate?

 

Nice news article right here on the site -

and the comments that followed.

Also, as I read it, FCC regulations are laws. Looks like they get a blanket law status for their regulations, although I am not a lawyer or student of the law.

Law suits ensue following yesterdays action.

 

Nice news article right here on the site -



Also, as I read it, FCC regulations are laws. Looks like they get a blanket law status for their regulations, although I am not a lawyer or student of the law.

.

And there the problem. Something as important as this needs to be voted on by Congress just as it was.

 

The arguments went both way in 2015 and likely will now too.

https://www.theverge.com/2015/2/26/8115953/fcc-net-neutrality-vote-reactions

As long as I can still Tor download pirated movies for free in less time than they take to play I don't care what they do.

Personally I would just be happy if my suposed 50Mbps internet package ever hit half that on speed tests that are done from someplace outside my providers test site.

My providers speed tests say 40- 50+ Mbps most of the time yet on any back to back independent test I rarely ever see 20- 25 tops. Methinks somebody doth lie about their package bandwidth.

 

... it was to remove the rules that had been in place for so long.

They had been in place for only two years. OMG, things may return to the way they were in 2015! Oh, the horrors, the bodies in the streets...

 

Seems clear to me.

Does it? If it seems clear to you, then you're either way smarter & informed than I am, or you haven't done much research about it. Either option equally likely.

I've seen the little "Net Neutrality For dummies"-type videos, slideshows, and pamphlets put on from both sides of the aisle. They've been posted all over social media and popping up in the news.
All of them dumb it down further than they should, and make it seem 100% like "Net neutrality is absolutely essential to prevent ISPs from monopolizing and nickle & diming you for every single way in which you use the internet," or "Net neutrality is a breach of your freedoms and is overreaching government control," respectively.

The explanations from both campaigns were polar opposites, yet made an equal amount of sense. So one of them has to be wrong, right? I set out to find out the truth myself; to drill down to details deeper than what were presented in the "dummies" presentations, and was quickly dragged into the weeds and beaten with conflicting and irrelevant information. I gave up and I still have no idea what this all means.

I came to the conclusion that, I have been paying my ISP in the same way, and accessing the internet in the same way for the last decade, and I don't have a problem with how things are. Any change to it could open doors, make improvements that I never even considered, but more than likely, any change is going to be negative.

I don't know what I'm talking about, but I think I oppose the repeal of Net Neutrality.

 

I came to the conclusion that, I have been paying my ISP in the same way, and accessing the internet in the same way for the last decade, and I don't have a problem with how things are. Any change to it could open doors, make improvements that I never even considered, but more than likely, any change is going to be negative.

That's just it: Net neutrality (an intentionally misleading name for "government-controlled internet") came into being Feb26, 2015. It wasn't needed then or now.

And yes, it's an easy choice between the free market solution and the central-planner 'solution'. Don't be fooled by all the wailing about what evil corporations might do to you. They theoretically could, but the market imposes harsh penalties on companies that don't deliver what customers want. And the market is far faster and more efficient than a roomful of clueless bureaucrats.

 

I don't know what I'm talking about, but I think I oppose the repeal of Net Neutrality.

Here's an idea for those in favor of net neutrality:

Raise some capital. Build your own network. Give it away to all comers.

Done.

Edit: the same concept can work for "food neutrality", "housing neutrality", "big-screen TV neutrality", etc.

 

Here's an idea for those in favor of net neutrality:

Raise some capital. Build your own network. Give it away to all comers.

Done.

Edit: the same concept can work for "food neutrality", "housing neutrality", "big-screen TV neutrality", etc.

Is it really to do with "free stuff for everyone?"
Because I'm opposed to that.
I thought it was more to do with monopolies, which I'm also opposed to.

 

Is it really to do with "free stuff for everyone?"

Yes.

I thought it was more to do with monopolies, which I'm also opposed to.

Only governments can make those.

 

Is it really to do with "free stuff for everyone?"
Because I'm opposed to that.
I thought it was more to do with monopolies, which I'm also opposed to.

Good question. The fear mongering in support of NN has certainly implied that free stuff might disappear. That got the attention and support of the "free stuff for everyone" crowd. I'm not sure it's true, though, and those people may have been duped into supporting something that's against their own best interests. I mean, I can imagine scenarios where there are even more services available free online if there are big spenders helping pay for more of the overhead. It's not obvious that anything will cost more, and in fact I would expect competition to drive costs down.

Abuse of monopolistic power in the market is already illegal. With the current diversity of suppliers in the market, I don't see any obvious internet monopolies on the horizon. If they arise, the FTC can have at them. Microsoft sort of gave it a try with Internet Explorer and all its proprietary 'standards', but we know how that turned out.

 

Good question. The fear mongering in support of NN has certainly implied that free stuff might disappear. That got the attention and support of the "free stuff for everyone" crowd. I'm not sure it's true, though, and those people may have been duped into supporting something that's against their own best interests. I mean, I can imagine scenarios where there are even more services available free online if there are big spenders helping pay for more of the overhead. It's not obvious that anything will cost more, and in fact I would expect competition to drive costs down.

This whole paragraph is summarized as follows:

"There's no such thing as a free lunch."

Yes. NN advocates are working against themselves.

 

Is it really to do with "free stuff for everyone?"
Because I'm opposed to that.
I thought it was more to do with monopolies, which I'm also opposed to.

Therein is one of the big distinctions. ISPs are not even close to being monopolies. With net neutrality, the FCC is basically trying to treat internet service providers the same way that utilities have been treated starting roughly a century ago. But there's a huge difference. How many service providers do you have to choose from for your water, your gas, your electricity, your landline service? In almost all cases, the answer is one. They are almost always a government-sanctioned monopoly and therefore have significant government oversight.

How many choices do you have for who your internet service provider is? For most people there are dozens of options available. Even out in the boonies were we are I have a number of options (none of them them particularly wonderful). I have at least two satellite options, I almost have a microwave option (just outside their line of sight but most of my neighbors can hit them), I can piggy back onto at least three cellular providers, or I could use dial-up (and I have several friends who still use dial-up because of where they live).

If I don't like the policies and actions of one I can vote with my feet and use someone else.

 

Yes. NN advocates are working against themselves.

Sounds right.

This all raises the question of why the previous administration bothered with NN in the first place. Other than the obvious extension of government into more and more of what was previously a free space, I believe it was done as a favor to big campaign donors, particularly those in Silicon Valley.

 

How many choices do you have for who your internet service provider is?

I have one choice that's cost effective and the fastest speed I can buy is 12MBPS down and 1MBPS up. I rarely get half of the download speed I'm paying for and it drops to dialup too frequently.

 

This all raises the question of why the previous administration bothered with NN in the first place.

Because with that side, intentions -- not results -- count.

 

I have one choice that's cost effective and the fastest speed I can buy is 12MBPS down and 1MBPS up. I rarely get half of the download speed I'm paying for and it drops to dialup too frequently.

You are getting about ten times the speed I get with my fastest option and at $60/mo for 1.5 Mbps, it is hardly cheap.

But I have other options. Are there people that don't? Sure. But what fraction of people have fewer than, say, four viable options?

And keep in mind that net neutrality has absolutely nothing to do with the basic speed or availability of internet service.

 

MOD NOTE: Let's please try to keep the partisan bickering out of the discussion. Although this topic is very arguably fair game for this community, it also naturally skirts the political realm. That does NOT give anyone license to launch into political tirades. If you insist on doing so, the thread will die a very quick death.