Trump FCC is doing away with net neutrality,

[randys]

After a quick rethink I might agree, the poor will get it for free, the rich can afford it anyway, that leaves the sucker middle class that always carries the burden it seems.

Sad but true



To me Obama phone simply means free phone for the poor, it's a term like coke or kleenex. I don't fall for blaming or crediting the POTUS all alone, ever.

Common sense dictates you cant survive in this economy or society without access to the internet. No honest person will argue with that statement unless said person lives in the mountains and kills their own dinner.

So add the internet to the list of things WE allow someone with a for profit motive to decide what we pay...ridiculous. And what is crazy is that is STILL not enough, they want to end neutrality so they can even get more from us.

And tribalism is why some consumers are on the side that is AGAINST their own self interest.

 

[Danoff]

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/com...ws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined

They redefine the word for their own purposes. Something you'd entirely expect for a legal endeavor

Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power. Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area.

No, it is very real. Many inventions and advancements have no profit motive, including the internet.

You mean like... the first literal networking between computers? Or the advancement and sale of broadband services? You're drawing an interesting line for... no apparent reason.

Many inventions happened because people wanted to create something, not knowing about whether profit was involved at all, at first.

You're thinking of the word "profit" a little more narrowly than I am. A farmer wanting to harvest crops more efficiently yields him a profit in terms of time, for example.

Wall street has sold us a lie, and we could do everything we now do without that lie. For instance that lowering the corp tax rate will help average people, it wont.

You're kinda swerving all over the map here.

While I agree that people would probably revolt, I'm not sure if Comcast would listen or even care to be honest. The core issue I have with any capitalist economic policy is that it relies on companies to listen to pressure from the consumer and then actively do something about it. When company X has a massive stake in a given area, there's not much room for competition, if it's allowed at all. Granted, it's better than socialism and having the government run everything, but it is an issue I struggle with.

As for a choice of internet providers, I do have a Verizon air card but it's fairly slow and makes trying to connect to my work's network an absolute PITA. When your job revolves around patient care, time is important. I'm not sure if DSL is available in my area, I've never checked, same goes for a T1 line. I guess I wish there was a choice in ISP with regards to broadband and that way the local market could decide which one is worth the money. If they were both horrendous, say Comcast and Charter, at least I'd be able to choose the lesser of the two evils.

Like I said, I'm not really for net neutrality on the principal it's the government mandating things, but I feel like before repealing it other things need to be looked at and either repealed or modified.

With that said though, I'm not sure about consumer protection laws in the US. If Comcast screws me, I'm not entirely sure what, if anything, I can actually do. For instance, they placed a cap on my internet without ever giving me a notice. I didn't know about it until I got a letter in the mail saying next time I went over my cap, I had to pay some ridiculous price per GB. I called them and got nowhere, tried again and still got nowhere, and finally just gave up after the third time because it wasn't worth the 45 minutes everytime I called. To me, that's screwing over the customer since when I purchased the internet plan I was told it was unlimited. I know they reserve the right to change it whenever they want, but at the same time doing so is just poor customer service.

Well, net neutrality won't do anything to prevent them from capping your service. If you signed up for service under no cap, and they introduced one to you against what you signed up for, you may have cause for legal action, possibly a class action lawsuit. My guess is that they were very careful about how they screwed with you and are legally safe.

I don't like Comcast... at all. Or Charter. I don't really like Centurylink either (although more than the former two). I'm not defending them as great upstanding services. They're better an example of what happens when there isn't enough competition (like everything government). Government is not a great answer to that. Comcast loves netflix, and youtube, and all the rest of it, and will push to keep that stuff sucking bandwidth because without those hogs, alternatives like tethering to your smartphone to surf amazon and check your email become a LOT more viable.

Your work connection sounds like something your work should cover tbh.

 

[KungFury]

And tribalism is why some consumers are on the side that is AGAINST their own self interest.

I thought that was a form of primitive communism which would be the the opposite of what you are saying.

 

[TenEightyOne]

You have choices for ISPs if you live in the US.

You still seem to be confusing the speed from your home to your ISP with the speed across the Web (not just internet). The web is where the new priority traffic is proposed.

 

[Danoff]

You still seem to be confusing the speed from your home to your ISP with the speed across the Web (not just internet). The web is where the new priority traffic is proposed.

I'm suggesting that there are ways to vote with your feet if you do not like your ISP's policies.

 

[Dennisch]

 

[Danoff]

Forget reality, let's just assume ISPs are god. So short sighted, so pessimistic, so confused about economics.

 

[wfooshee]

AT&T owns DirecTV. If AT&T is my ISP, are they going to let me stream PSVue? is PSVue going to have "difficulties?"

Verizon owns Yahoo. What does that do to my Android service from them, with Android coming from Google?

I have trouble seeing this as a gain for consumer choices. "If you don't like your ISP, choose a different one." There are only two where I live, and you sign up for a year or two commitment at minimum.

Yes, they say that companies who prioritize certain traffic will have to notify you that they're doing so. WTF can I do about it when I get that notification?

The only thing I could hope for is getting Google as my ISP and having them block Bing. Then MSN wouldn't work at all and life would be better!

I saw AT&T's statement along the lines that removing Net neutrality would let ISPs provide service without "lumbering government intervention." To me, what he's saying is that removing Net Neutrality frees us up to do what we want in selecting the data we provide to our customers.

There is simply no way that any ISP will not turn this into a self-serving circus of ala carte service packages, the same way cable companies give you basic cable and however many levels of more channels, plus premium channels, all for more and more $$$$. No, there was never "cable neutrality," and television programming has always been a for-profit system, but removing Net Neutrality makes the Internet a for-profit system. I don't see how it can be otherwise.

 

[Danoff]

AT&T owns DirecTV. If AT&T is my ISP, are they going to let me stream PSVue? is PSVue going to have "difficulties?"

Verizon owns Yahoo. What does that do to my Android service from them, with Android coming from Google?

I have trouble seeing this as a gain for consumer choices. "If you don't like your ISP, choose a different one." There are only two where I live, and you sign up for a year or two commitment at minimum.

There's nowhere in the US that this is the case.

Yes, they say that companies who prioritize certain traffic will have to notify you that they're doing so. WTF can I do about it when I get that notification?

Change your ISP to one that provides you with service you like. Lots of demand for a different ISP in an area? Voila! You actually get more choices.

I saw AT&T's statement along the lines that removing Net neutrality would let ISPs provide service without "lumbering government intervention." To me, what he's saying is that removing Net Neutrality frees us up to do what we want in selecting the data we provide to our customers.

It would enable them to charge companies for sucking bandwidth instead of you. Could actually decrease your prices (a lot). And you may still be able to pay for a neutral connection, subsidized by those that aren't.

There is simply no way that any ISP will not turn this into a self-serving circus of ala carte service packages, the same way cable companies give you basic cable and however many levels of more channels, plus premium channels, all for more and more $$$$. No, there was never "cable neutrality," and television programming has always been a for-profit system, but removing Net Neutrality makes the Internet a for-profit system. I don't see how it can be otherwise.

The internet is a for-profit system.

Yes, I get it. Everyone is scared... of the very thing that got us to this point in the first place.

 

[Dennisch]

Forget reality, let's just assume ISPs are god. So short sighted, so pessimistic, so confused about economics.

Is it weird that people distrust big companies?

 

[Danoff]

Is it weird that people distrust big companies?

Yes and no. Big companies, like government, do bad things. But companies and capitalism in general is responsible for the reason that pretty much all of us live better than most kings that have ever lived.

Humans have a tendency to value what they have more than what they can get. It's a cognitive bias known as loss-aversion. You're more concerned about losing our current internet than fostering a better, faster, cheaper one.

 

[KungFury]

Change your ISP to one that provides you with service you like. Lots of demand for a different ISP in an area? Voila! You actually get more choices.

Kinda like choosing a health care provider?

The internet is a for-profit system.

Yes, I get it. Everyone is scared... of the very thing that got us to this point in the first place.

👍

But but, for profit must be evil and everyone knows once the technology is in place it's a great idea to screw the facilitators.

 

[Dennisch]

Yes and no. Big companies, like government, do bad things. But companies and capitalism in general is responsible for the reason that pretty much all of us live better than most kings that have ever lived.

Humans have a tendency to value what they have more than what they can get.

So, people are right to be afraid for changes that could be made in favor of a couple of already rich people. If they get the chance, they will raise prices on everything they can, effectively shutting the door for a lot of people. People who now do have that access.

 

[Northstar]

So, people are right to be afraid for changes that could be made in favor of a couple of already rich people. If they get the chance, they will raise prices on everything they can, effectively shutting the door for a lot of people. People who now do have that access.

They will do that with or without net neutrality.

For some reason this whole net neutrality thing makes me think of someone running out of a house screaming “fire” when all that’s going on is someone lit the fireplace.

 

[Dennisch]

For some reason this whole net neutrality thing makes me think of someone running out of a house screaming “fire” when all that’s going on is someone lit the fireplace.

I hope for the average American that it turns out to be nothing but a dud. But I have serious doubts.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Forget reality, let's just assume ISPs are god.

Now you come to mention it... the regulation and sale of information while The Wrong Information is blocked and denied does sound strangely familiar...

So short sighted, so pessimistic, so confused about economics.

Aside from the fact that you almost wrote that in Trump's voice* I'd take balanced free speech over economic "necessity" any time.

*Really no offence meant, but that's how I read it

 

[Northstar]

I hope for the average American that it turns out to be nothing but a dud. But I have serious doubts.

We’ve only had net neutrality since 2015. I don’t think things have gotten any better, or worse in the time since.

 

[TenEightyOne]

We’ve only had net neutrality since 2015. I don’t think things have gotten any better, or worse in the time since.

Enshrined in internet-specific law, yes. Otherwise you've had the equivalent since the mid 1800s. It was the decision to give internet lines the same status as telegrams and phone lines that put the web specifically into law, iirc.

 

[KungFury]

I'd take balanced free speech over economic "necessity" any time.

I hope you mean only in direct regards to the internet, but even then I'm not sure you mean that.

 

[Pupik]

I think the really unanswerable question is: Can we just pay more to have the cable or internet repaired faster?

I have trouble seeing this as a gain for consumer choices. "If you don't like your ISP, choose a different one." There are only two where I live, and you sign up for a year or two commitment at minimum.

There's nowhere in the US that this is the case.

Literally every apartment building, co-op, many homeowner's associations. Buy more expensive properties, and you're possibly freed from that. Problem salved.

That freeing up ISPs will hopefully do anything better at the same price point hinges massively on "hope"; that they don't perform some sort of bandwidth cap or limitations because the market because they want to care about their customers. They aren't going to drop prices and eliminate fees because now they're freed from regulation, either. In theory, that should work. But somehow, there's an airline industry laughing as I type this (want me to list airlines that you can't fly anymore?).

Yeah, maybe it will work out or maybe Premium Priority 99.9999% Correct Search Results Milked From Real Humans will cost $1 each.

I can only hope the worst doesn't come true, but I'm too old to believe in fairy tales anymore. The best I can believe is that I can't tell the difference in speed and have my wife pay the bill.

 

[zzz_pt]

Couldn't read the entire discussion but I'll leave this here anyway.



It makes some reasonable points on the subject IMO.

I follow this channel and I trust Troy's opinions, usually.

 

[boiltheocean]

Change your ISP to one that provides you with service you like. Lots of demand for a different ISP in an area? Voila! You actually get more choices.

Do you?

http://www.latimes.com/business/hil...-municipal-broadband-20160812-snap-story.html

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...-won-limits-on-public-broadband-in-20-states/

 

[wfooshee]

There's nowhere in the US that this is the case.

Huh? I just literally described the availability in my neighborhood. In Florida. Which is part of the US.

It would enable them to charge companies for sucking bandwidth instead of you.

Which they would pass on to me by a higher price.
But, it would also enable them to charge me directly for high-bandwidth sites, the same way cable companies charge more for higher-level packages.

 

[kikie]

it will take an idiot or uninformed person to disagree, and there are plenty of those.

Idiot number two! I'm getting myself informed though, until then, I don't agree nor do I disagree.

 

[randys]

it will take an idiot or uninformed person to disagree, and there are plenty of those.

It is not because corporations are evil, it is because they only care for one thing, themselves and nothing, absolutely nothing else. And that is the way it should be because they do not serve any purpose. In the EU mobile data and voice is cheaper than ever, simply thanks to political regulation. If the markets weren't regulated it would still be super expensive. But competition!!!? usually works, but there are countless of examples where either the economic gains are bigger by not competing (see mobile markets in EU) or giants like Google simply are too big.

If Google or Netflix has to pay extra to get their content to their customers the customer ends up paying the bill, it is foolish to think anyone else will pick up that bill. But let's pretend we are ELLO, the new social network that was all the news some years ago, their success would have made it very hard for them to survive. While today it is something to build on, in the future it will be a bigger bill to pay before you might have something to pay with.

This site is just a vulnerable, i am in Europe, why should i visit this site when it loads so slow and is hardly usable because the owners didn't pay for priority traffic to the EU?

If i own cable TV and i am a ISP and Infrastructure provider, why should i then help YT and Facebook compete against me, might as well charge extra for that data, maybe even make it hard to use. Netflix experienced that one before..

I wont call them idiots, they are victims of tribalism however. Supporting something that harms them solely because of who is telling them to support it.

 

[Azuremen]

Is it weird that people distrust big companies?

Not any weirder than people distrusting government.

The lack of competition in the US is the result of government granting regional monopolies to telecom services, and @boiltheocean linked articles to laws (the government) being used to block competition via lobbying. A lot of the power held by corporations is through manipulating regulations via the government. Some are just easier to paint as the bad guy and some the good guy, though they all are looking out for profits - Netflix pushed the 2015 Net Neutrality heavily because it was interfering with their business model, not because they wanted to the "good" guy. But it was a nice way to spin it.

 

[stonesfan129]

Well, the way that many on the right see it - laws like this get in the way of free market enterprise. I'm a Republican voter but my two cents - it was a good law and they should have passed it. Without this law, an ISP can come into an area, buy up all the territory, offer a pos service and you're basically stuck with it if you want internet service. Your other option is to go with something like DSL, dial-up (do they even have that anymore) or no internet connectivity at all. I'm kind of surprised because wouldn't this also allow ISPs to essentially create monopolies over an area? I think they should have passed net neutrality. Maybe a better idea would be for the DOJ to bust up monopolies or oligopolies so that one or a few different ISPs can't just come into an area and offer crap service take it or leave it. If it could be done, I would support my tax dollars building fiber everywhere and offering internet service for free nationwide. I know that in some cities, I can't think if it's the city or state, they offer free wifi for the city's residents. I think that's better than using my taxes to pay for road construction while I can never drive on it in the summer.

 

[Danoff]

Literally every apartment building, co-op, many homeowner's associations. Buy more expensive properties, and you're possibly freed from that. Problem salved.

Huh? I just literally described the availability in my neighborhood. In Florida. Which is part of the US.

I'd be willing to wager that both of you have a device in your pocket right now that has broadband access... I'd also be willing to wager that both of you live in an area where you could purchase and operate such a device... from several ISPs (such as Sprint, T-mobile, ATT, and Verizon).

 

[Dennisch]

I'd be willing to wager that both of you have a device in your pocket right now that has broadband access... I'd also be willing to wager that both of you live in an area where you could purchase and operate such a device... from several ISPs (such as Sprint, T-mobile, ATT, and Verizon).

Broadband access that usually is capped after so many Gb's. Even on "unlimited" plans. Something Internet through a wire probably hasn't seen in years.

You know just as well as everyone here that if this plan goes through, prices go up because of the greed of a couple of fat cats, speeds to certain sites will be throttled or sites will be blocked completely.

 

[CSLACR]

They better be careful that people don't realize life is better without internet.

Common sense dictates you cant survive in this economy or society without access to the internet. No honest person will argue with that statement unless said person lives in the mountains and kills their own dinner.

I live in the mountains, I don't, nor have I ever killed my own dinner. I can, and have, survived without internet.

Everything that internet is required for, for the normal person, can be instantaneously removed, and all it will add is some hassle, and actual planning in general day-to-day life.

I actually can't even think of a hassle it would add to mine, to be honest. Internet is close to 100% convenience,