Trump FCC is doing away with net neutrality,

[Danoff]

Force and coercion do not exclusively require the use of guns. "Lobbying" can be achieved through bribery, blackmail or verbal threats.

Your mother forcing you to do something doesn't mean she's pointing a gun at you.

Lobbying is not force. But if lobbying results in public policy change, it has resulted in force - because that's what US law is, force, ultimately executed with police and guns. You're right that force is not exclusively carried out through the use of guns, but I would have accepted non-gun responses to my question such as baseball bats, brass knuckles, military air strikes, and threats of violence against you or your family.

 

[Belifant]

I don’t think it will make things any better or worse, just like when net neutrality took effect in 2015.

Actually, Net Neutrality was always in place in the modern internet, but not enforced by law until 2015. But in recent years, as we all know, ISP's and other companies tried to do things that are against Net Neutrality, so it became necessary to put Net Neutrality in a written law.

Yes getting rid of Net Neutrality probably doesn't make things worse for us in the short time future. But long term, it sure will. It will prevent new startups from entering the market, because the established competition will use their power to block the startup/priorities their own service.

 

[Northstar]

It will prevent new startups from entering the market, because the established competition will use their power to block the startup/priorities their own service.

So, it will be exactly like it already is?

Currently all smaller ISPs utilize the networks of the big companies, and guess which customers get priority?

 

[Pupik]

I would never even consider using that device as my primary means of Internet access.

That said, I get many hotels in my travels where the internet is 28.8K slow, or even down. (I don't expect hotel desk clerks to take care of internet issues, save the occasional un-plug+re-plug router.) Or at sites where I don't need client infrastructure interference/intrusion.

So my phone or wireless hotspot does have to take over tethering duties. Naturally, that means you have to be somewhere with a guaranteed and/or strong signal. There's sites that have strong radio interference (usually police antennae) which makes for a long day of logging in 47 times a day because you were unexpectedly booted out 46 times, and the silly head of IT forgot to whitelist our domains.

Anyhow, the ISPs will then rush to create their own clumsy versions of popular websites, usually by bidding for them, or just buying out some other company's knockoff or unsuccessful startup. They will hastily integrate it into their portfolio, and kludge it so that this seven-sided bolt of an application is over-torqued into place with the wrong tools, damaging both the head and the tool in the process.

They'll pay too much for software they didn't want to buy in the first place, can't get their own internal support for it, and then dump it 3 years later. Thus...the consumers are to blame for "stifling innovation".

Har-har.

 

[Belifant]

So, it will be exactly like it already is?

Currently all smaller ISPs utilize the networks of the big companies, and guess which customers get priority?

I'm glad to see you are arguing me on this part of my comment and not on the first part

 

[Northstar]

I'm glad to see you are arguing me on this part of my comment and not on the first part

And I’m glad you’re apparently not arguing me at all.

 

[CSLACR]

Google fi is $30/mo and delivers me 20Mbs. If wireless internet is a joke, why do you have it?

I don't?

I guess 20mbps for 30 bucks isn't terrible, if it works well. You presumably do realize depending on location, towers, and weather it varies.
And it's double the price per mbps as my cable.

But 20mbps is also pretty close to the slowest internet you can get.

 

[Danoff]

I don't?

I guess 20mbps for 30 bucks isn't terrible, if it works well. You presumably do realize depending on location, towers, and weather it varies.
And it's double the price per mbps as my cable.

But 20mbps is also pretty close to the slowest internet you can get.

You literally don't have a smartphone with a data connection? I've heard of people like you. I even know one person like yourself. But... it's unusual to come across such a person these days.

A T1 line, which is quite usable, is 1.5mbps.

Edit:

The percentage of Americans with a smartphone is just eeking out the percentage of Americans with broadband and is closing in on "use the internet":

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/01/12/evolution-of-technology/

 

[Mike458]

Is it me or if net neutrality is stuck down it will work something like this: (this is all just a hypothesis but it's what I forsee)

Striking down net neutrality would be like removing the minimum wage. Companies would work together to jack up prices for internet connections, slow down any competing sites, and they can all control the internet as they please. They win, we lose. Giving control to these network companies with only profit motives in mind rather than having a completely neutral party (net neutrality) controlling the internet is just simply absurd.

As I saw in someone's signature, I think what's going through Trump (and every congressman who is in favor of this bill)'s head is this: "If it ain't broke, fix it until it is."

 

[Danoff]

Is it me or if net neutrality is stuck down it will work something like this: (this is all just a hypothesis but it's what I forsee)

Striking down net neutrality would be like removing the minimum wage. Companies would work together to jack up prices for internet connections, slow down any competing sites, and they can all control the internet as they please. They win, we lose. Giving control to these network companies with only profit motives in mind rather than having a completely neutral party (net neutrality) controlling the internet is just simply absurd.

As I saw in someone's signature, I think what's going through Trump (and every congressman who is in favor of this bill)'s head is this: "If it ain't broke, fix it until it is."

Minimum wage is bad for poor people. You failed all over your analogy.

 

[Mike458]

Minimum wage is bad for poor people. You failed all over your analogy.

What I am saying is that it is a NECESSITY. With minimum wages, if there was no minimum wage, then companies would work together and drive down wages to practically zero. More people would be working, but... there would be MORE poor people! (off topic, but it relates)

The same goes with net neutrality. If net neutrality was removed, then companies would work together to jack up internet bills for ANY competing sites (such as Youtube and Amazon) and they could essentially control the internet!

 

[Danoff]

What I am saying is that it is a NECESSITY.

Minimum wage? No it isn't. We have a thread on that btw.

 

[Peter.]

Minimum wage? No it isn't. We have a thread on that btw.

If you can't see how disastrous a society without a minimum wage law would be, where corporations would overpower the demands and needs of the average citizen due to their control of money and jobs people need, as well as over the politicians that make the rules, then I can't help you. But, that's an argument for another day.

It is a similar situation to this net neutrality thing, in that it's a case of laws that protect the consumer from what would be an inevitable follow up of greedy actions in the absence of said law. The 'big bad government' doesn't regulate markets like this to spitefully restrict profit margins, nor for some sort of ulterior motive to control the populace.

This notion that all government regulation is questionable at best and fascist at worst, even when it so clearly isn't, is an issue much bigger than this. That said, if for whatever reason you cannot understand that government control is better than letting corporate greed run more rampant than it already has, then you've already made your mind up and I can't help you.

 

[Danoff]

If you can't see how disastrous a society without a minimum wage law would be, where corporations would overpower the demands and needs of the average citizen due to their control of money and jobs people need, as well as over the politicians that make the rules, then I can't help you. But, that's an argument for another day.

The percentage of hourly paid workers earning the prevailing federal minimum wage or less declined from 3.3 percent in 2015 to 2.7 percent in 2016. This remains well below the percentage of 13.4 recorded in 1979, when data were first collected on a regular basis. (See table 10.)

It turns out, corporations willingly pay more than they are federal required. Crazy! What stops their greed?

That said, if for whatever reason you cannot understand that government control is better than letting corporate greed run more rampant than it already has, then you've already made your mind up and I can't help you.

Someone has a closed mind it seems. Yes, corporations are greedy. No, that doesn't result in consumer trampling. Economics.

 

[Peter.]

It turns out, corporations willingly pay more than they are federal required. Crazy! What stops their greed?

Inconclusive. The report even admits it does not include individuals who earn a salary that when calculated would be at or below the minimum. That said, while I was not exactly an advocate for a minimum wage increase because I understood it would create more problems than it solved, I understand the purpose of a minimum wage.

Someone has a closed mind it seems. Yes, corporations are greedy. No, that doesn't result in consumer trampling. Economics.

You don't need to remind an Economics student about basic Economics. I specifically used the term inevitable, rather than imminent. We'd be on to them if they made such changes immediately. A perfect example would be the video game industry, where the more recent trend among big developers is to sell you a full price game, then attempt to riddle it with what was at first DLC, now evolving into micro-transactions, and now to the point where games are designed and rigged in a manner that forces more money out of you to enjoy it to full extent.

The only difference is that instead of games that aren't a vital part of everyday life, have high competition, ease of access, few barriers to entry etc. we are talking about the internet, to which none of the aforementioned apply. As a result, I can't stop using the internet if I'm unhappy with my terrible service and start writing letters or sending telegrams and expect to get by in 2017.

 

[Liquid]

Is it me or if net neutrality is stuck down it will work something like this: (this is all just a hypothesis but it's what I forsee)

Striking down net neutrality would be like removing the minimum wage. Companies would work together to jack up prices for internet connections, slow down any competing sites, and they can all control the internet as they please. They win, we lose. Giving control to these network companies with only profit motives in mind rather than having a completely neutral party (net neutrality) controlling the internet is just simply absurd.

As I saw in someone's signature, I think what's going through Trump (and every congressman who is in favor of this bill)'s head is this: "If it ain't broke, fix it until it is."

Minimum wage is bad for poor people. You failed all over your analogy.

Is the rest of the analogy inadequate or just the minimum wage reference?

Curiosity.

 

[Danoff]

Inconclusive. The report even admits it does not include individuals who earn a salary that when calculated would be at or below the minimum.

What's inconclusive? That "corporations willingly pay more than they are federal required"? If that's it, you must be joking. If not, maybe you mean you don't know what stops their greed. I'll tell you, economics. Your response about salaried employees is... apparently totally irrelevant? I can't see the connection.

That said, while I was not exactly an advocate for a minimum wage increase because I understood it would create more problems than it solved, I understand the purpose of a minimum wage.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

You don't need to remind an Economics student about basic Economics.

Apparently I do.

I specifically used the term inevitable, rather than imminent. We'd be on to them if they made such changes immediately. A perfect example would be the video game industry, where the more recent trend among big developers is to sell you a full price game, then attempt to riddle it with what was at first DLC, now evolving into micro-transactions, and now to the point where games are designed and rigged in a manner that forces more money out of you to enjoy it to full extent.

And consumers adjust.

The only difference is that instead of games that aren't a vital part of everyday life, have high competition, ease of access, few barriers to entry etc. we are talking about the internet, to which none of the aforementioned apply. As a result, I can't stop using the internet if I'm unhappy with my terrible service and start writing letters or sending telegrams and expect to get by in 2017.

Is the rest of the analogy inadequate or just the minimum wage reference?

Curiosity.

I'm not sure what you mean. The minimum wage arguments fall down for many of the same reasons as net neutrality, a lack of understanding of economics. You could start seeing how the analogy isn't so bad if you realize that minimum wage is a regulation that's poorly conceived and actually harms the people that it's purported to help. Then, yea, the analogy starts to look a little more appropriate.

 

[Spurgy 777]

Surely removing net neutrality would, in theory, reduce the cost to customers assuming they had a lets say "restricted package". Because if the ISPs are going to give you an internet package where they prioritize speeds/access to different websites and limit them with others, not only would customers not want to pay as much for those packages (because who wants to pay more for less), the ISP could also charge the websites/companies to have priority speed/access so aren't losing any profit. It would make sense for the ISPs to keep some sort of "net neutral" package because based on the response of removing net neutrality in the US, it seems like it would be pretty popular.

I'm just not seeing how removing it is going to be such a doomsday scenario, it just seems like it would make far more sense for ISPs to continue to provide net neutral internet at the same price as they do now whilst also introducing some cheaper prioritized packages where they can charge companies priority. But then I don't do economics or business so what do I know.

 

[TenEightyOne]

But then I don't do economics or business so what do I know.

Was it Posner who said that "economic experts" are always hawks or doves? The truth is that there's no single right way in economics, despite each expert (naturally) telling you that there is.

 

[Danoff]

Was it Posner who said that "economic experts" are always hawks or doves? The truth is that there's no single right way in economics, despite each expert (naturally) telling you that there is.

Economics is really just the study of people trading. It is an attempt to understand how and way they trade, and what pressures exist in that relationship. It's not about "the right way" or "the wrong way", it's about how people behave.

 

[Mike458]

This song appears to be appropriate for today:

 

[Liquid]

The FCC votes 3-2 to repeal net neutrality bill.

 

[Mike458]

Don't worry, it'll get shut down in Congress...

 

[Jump_Ace]

It's dead and we have 60 days to undo it. "Thanks Republicans"

Now we get to see full on why less regulation is a bad mantra (again - as if the housing crisis wasn't enough).


Jerome

 

[CodeRedR51]

 

[Mike458]

But you have to remember that Pai is just Verizon's pet (putting this as nice as I can) and he will do anything that Verizon tells him to do...

 

[Famine]

There's still two things I don't get here.

Firstly, was the internet really, really bad in 2014 or something? I don't remember it being super awful or anything.
Secondly, what is the FCC doing making law? I thought governments made laws and its agencies ensured compliance?

 

[Joey D]

There's still two things I don't get here.

Firstly, was the internet really, really bad in 2014 or something? I don't remember it being super awful or anything.
Secondly, what is the FCC doing making law? I thought governments made laws and its agencies ensured compliance?

They aren't laws, but rather rules. And Congress gives them the power to create and enforce them I believe.

 

[wfooshee]

American Agencies set policies to regulate those items, tasks, services, etc., that they are responsible for. They are granted that authority in the Congressional charters that create them. Congress has oversight, and is supposed to be able to reign in an over-reaching agency.

For example, off-road-only modifications have long been OK for car-building, i.e. intended for competition. You can build a race car that doesn't have to meet emissions requirements, you just can't drive it around town. The EPA tried to make such modifications to production cars illegal recently. That was deemed to be a bit far-fetched and they were politely asked to review (rescind) that objective, by folks who not-so-politely made their position clear.

Almost treed, but I gave an example.

 

[Famine]

They aren't laws, but rather rules. And Congress gives them the power to create and enforce them I believe.

The EPA tried to make such modifications to production cars illegal recently.

Okay, but how would that not be a law? A rule that makes something illegal - against the law - is surely... a law?


From what I understand here, the FCC has now decided that its original decision - that the internet belongs in the Telecommunications Act - wasn't right and it doesn't.

The Telecommunications Act is a law. The FCC deciding that the internet belongs in it, and then deciding that it doesn't, is either a change to the law, which should be under the purview of the legislative branch of government is for, or a change to the interpretation of the law, which should be the domain of the judicial branch. As far as I can tell, the FCC is neither a lawmaking body, nor a judicial one - so I don't see how, Constitutionally, it fits into the picture at all.