FCC to repeal Net Neutrality Bill

[Salandriagado]

I'm personally for repealing net neutrality. Before 2014, net neutrality laws weren't in place (At least the ones passed in 2014/2015), and the internet was still fine. Now all of a sudden, three years later, it's such a big deal that they're getting repealed? Let the companies compete to provide the best service; And, if they do decide to suddenly make access to certain websites paid (Which I don't really have any experiences of that happening before 2014, correct me if I'm wrong),

Those rules were put in place precisely because of the abuses that were going on. The issue isn't with customers being charged: it's with websites being charged (and thus smaller/competing websites being driven out of business).

then the act would restore the Federal Trade Commission's ability to protect people from unfair acts.

No it wouldn't.

[Alvecia]

How does article 2 currently limit competitiveness in that regard, if you don’t mind me asking?

For one, Article II reclassified ISPs as common carriers, imposing utility regulation on them and limiting competitiveness by restricting the way companies can lower/raise their prices and rates to compete which each other.

What utility regulations? And what restrictions on prices are there.

I’m literally ignorant as duck on this subject. Inform me.

Edit:...... I’m leaving that in.

[Gagium]

I'm personally for repealing net neutrality. Before 2014, net neutrality laws weren't in place (At least the ones passed in 2014/2015), and the internet was still fine. Now all of a sudden, three years later, it's such a big deal that they're getting repealed? Let the companies compete to provide the best service; And, if they do decide to suddenly make access to certain websites paid (Which I don't really have any experiences of that happening before 2014, correct me if I'm wrong),

Those rules were put in place precisely because of the abuses that were going on. The issue isn't with customers being charged: it's with websites being charged (and thus smaller/competing websites being driven out of business).

then the act would restore the Federal Trade Commission's ability to protect people from unfair acts.

No it wouldn't.

https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attac ... 7927A1.pdf
Yes, it would.

[Salandriagado]

In 2014 I didn't visit YT or Twitter. I spent most of my days online doing school work on my school email.

Oh. Well, I personally don't remember having to pay to visit those sites, lol..

Did you try to watch Netflix while on Verizon? Because if you did, you'd find that it didn't work.

[align=][/align]

So if the rules didn't change anything why get rid of them?

They do limit competition and investment, though they didn't have too much of an effect on internet speed. If we repeal it, the industry would become competitive again, allowing for corporations to compete with each other for lower prices and faster speeds, etc.

Yeah, no. The industry has never been competitive, for historical reasons.

How does article 2 currently limit competitiveness in that regard, if you don’t mind me asking?

For one, Article II reclassified ISPs as common carriers,

They were already common carriers. They will continue to be common carriers. They want to continue to be common carriers. Them not being common carriers is a legal shitstorm that nobody wants to get involved with.

imposing utility regulation on them

That's not a bad thing.

and limiting competitiveness by restricting the way companies can lower/raise their prices and rates to compete which each other.

No it doesn't.

[Salandriagado]

Those rules were put in place precisely because of the abuses that were going on. The issue isn't with customers being charged: it's with websites being charged (and thus smaller/competing websites being driven out of business).



No it wouldn't.

https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attac ... 7927A1.pdf
Yes, it would.

Somebody who is trying to sell people on the idea saying "this would have good effects" does not mean that it would actually have that effect.

[The Portland Territory]

I honestely dont see why so many people are against this. Do I want to pay extra money to go to a specific site? No, I dont, but why should the government say that ISP's aren't allowed to do it? What justification is there to do that?

Not to mention, if this goes through and ISP's begin to do this, you know that a few new or even preexisting ones will pop up and openly not do this to attract new customers

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

From Jim 'Fucking' Sterling Son.

[Gagium]

For one, Article II reclassified ISPs as common carriers, imposing utility regulation on them and limiting competitiveness by restricting the way companies can lower/raise their prices and rates to compete which each other.

What utility regulations? And what restrictions on prices are there.

I’m literally ignorant as duck on this subject. Inform me.

Edit:...... I’m leaving that in.

Well, classifying ISPS as common carriers imposed utility regulations (Or rather utility-style regulations) on them (I think, there's not really much sources on the subject that aren't opinion news articles, but I'm trying to get what I can). Either way, I don't see what's wrong with repealing net neutrality laws and reclassifying them as Title I information services. I suppose the utility-style regulations also tie in with the Internet Conduct standard introduced by the FCC in 2014, which limited innovation.

[Gagium]

https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attac ... 7927A1.pdf
Yes, it would.

Somebody who is trying to sell people on the idea saying "this would have good effects" does not mean that it would actually have that effect.

And a group of people trying to say "this would have bad effects" doesn't mean it would that effect necessarily.

Oh. Well, I personally don't remember having to pay to visit those sites, lol..

Did you try to watch Netflix while on Verizon? Because if you did, you'd find that it didn't work.

They do limit competition and investment, though they didn't have too much of an effect on internet speed. If we repeal it, the industry would become competitive again, allowing for corporations to compete with each other for lower prices and faster speeds, etc.

Yeah, no. The industry has never been competitive, for historical reasons.

For one, Article II reclassified ISPs as common carriers,

They were already common carriers. They will continue to be common carriers. They want to continue to be common carriers. Them not being common carriers is a legal shitstorm that nobody wants to get involved with.

imposing utility regulation on them

That's not a bad thing.

and limiting competitiveness by restricting the way companies can lower/raise their prices and rates to compete which each other.

No it doesn't.

1. No, never tried to do that. Didn't know that happened tbh
2. There's not many 'historical reasons'. The industry is around two decades old.
3. They'd be reclassified as Title I internet services if passed
4. No, it's not.
5. Yes, it does.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

I honestely dont see why so many people are against this. Do I want to pay extra money to go to a specific site? No, I dont, but why should the government say that ISP's aren't allowed to do it? What justification is there to do that?

Not to mention, if this goes through and ISP's begin to do this, you know that a few new or even preexisting ones will pop up and openly not do this to attract new customers

Beacuse it's a blatant cash grab done by billionaires.

[Great Nepal]

I'm personally for repealing net neutrality. Before 2014, net neutrality laws weren't in place (At least the ones passed in 2014/2015), and the internet was still fine. Now all of a sudden, three years later, it's such a big deal that they're getting repealed? Let the companies compete to provide the best service; And, if they do decide to suddenly make access to certain websites paid (Which I don't really have any experiences of that happening before 2014, correct me if I'm wrong), then the act would restore the Federal Trade Commission's ability to protect people from unfair acts.

And before 2014 ISPs were using their power to redirect search results, insert search results, threaten to slow competitor's website if companies didn't pay, and block protocols like p2p or voip because those protocols were competing with other things isp sold like phone lines. Thats why the regulation was introduced in first place.

[Vassenor]

So are there any reasons for doing this that aren't just GUBMINT BAD?

[Alvecia]

What utility regulations? And what restrictions on prices are there.

I’m literally ignorant as duck on this subject. Inform me.

Edit:...... I’m leaving that in.

Well, classifying ISPS as common carriers imposed utility regulations (Or rather utility-style regulations) on them (I think, there's not really much sources on the subject that aren't opinion news articles, but I'm trying to get what I can). Either way, I don't see what's wrong with repealing net neutrality laws and reclassifying them as Title I information services. I suppose the utility-style regulations also tie in with the Internet Conduct standard introduced by the FCC in 2014, which limited innovation.

I mean, you say that it means there is extra regulation on them and that the Standard limits innovation. But I still don't know how that happens.
How does this regulation negatively impact the competetiveness of ISP's and how does this standard limit their innovation?
Even googling it doesn't reveal anything concrete.

[Salandriagado]

Somebody who is trying to sell people on the idea saying "this would have good effects" does not mean that it would actually have that effect.

And a group of people trying to say "this would have bad effects" doesn't mean it would that effect necessarily.

But the fact that we've already seen those bad effects happening does.

Did you try to watch Netflix while on Verizon? Because if you did, you'd find that it didn't work.



Yeah, no. The industry has never been competitive, for historical reasons.



They were already common carriers. They will continue to be common carriers. They want to continue to be common carriers. Them not being common carriers is a legal shitstorm that nobody wants to get involved with.



That's not a bad thing.



No it doesn't.

1. No, never tried to do that. Didn't know that happened tbh

This is one of many reasons that those regulations were put in place.

2. There's not many 'historical reasons'. The industry is around two decades old.

Length of time does not preclude historical reasons. The historical reason is essentially that the big ISPs had their initial infrastructure setup funded by the government.

3. They'd be reclassified as Title I internet services if passed

But would still be common carriers. Words have meanings.

4. No, it's not.

So why did you pretend that it was?

5. Yes, it does.

No it doesn't, at all, unless you can cite a specific line in the regulations saying otherwise.

[Great Nepal]

I honestely dont see why so many people are against this. Do I want to pay extra money to go to a specific site? No, I dont, but why should the government say that ISP's aren't allowed to do it? What justification is there to do that?

Not to mention, if this goes through and ISP's begin to do this, you know that a few new or even preexisting ones will pop up and openly not do this to attract new customers

Same reason why your electricity company shouldn't be able to say "you only get full power from your electric line if you are using that electricity with our affiliate's electronic devices". That'd be anti-competitive to the extreme and blatantly harmful to consumer.

Hahaaa no. Most people won't blame their ISPs, they will blame the websites because that is what is infront of them. Of the few who do blame their ISP, significant proportion's choice will be "move to area with more ISPs" because basically no one has 3+ providers (unless you're planning on relying exclusively on 4g max). Idea that there will just be 'more competition' is silly and naive, Google with all the power google has managed to connect 453,000 households in seven years because wiring a major city is estimated to cost ~$1 billion. Have fun trying to recoup that $1bn initial investment in rural area with population density of shitall.

[Vassenor]

I honestely dont see why so many people are against this. Do I want to pay extra money to go to a specific site? No, I dont, but why should the government say that ISP's aren't allowed to do it? What justification is there to do that?

Not to mention, if this goes through and ISP's begin to do this, you know that a few new or even preexisting ones will pop up and openly not do this to attract new customers

Same reason why your electricity company shouldn't be able to say "you only get full power from your electric line if you are using that electricity with our affiliate's electronic devices". That'd be anti-competitive to the extreme and blatantly harmful to consumer.

Hahaaa no. Most people won't blame their ISPs, they will blame the websites because that is what is infront of them. Of the few who do blame their ISP, significant proportion's choice will be "move to area with more ISPs" because basically no one has 3+ providers (unless you're planning on relying exclusively on 4g max). Idea that there will just be 'more competition' is silly and naive, Google with all the power google has managed to connect 453,000 households in seven years because wiring a major city is estimated to cost ~$1 billion. Have fun trying to recoup that $1bn initial investment in rural area with population density of shitall.

Although you do notice that where Google has moved in the prices from whichever Broadband provider had the effective monopoly in that area suddenly come right down.

[Euroafriasia]

Why would they do this?

[Vassenor]

Why would they do this?

Because corporations don't like it when the government tells them they can't screw people over.

[The of Japan]

I guess we will see what happens

[Greed and Death]

Why would they do this?

Because it was regulating a problem that by and large did not exist.

[Alvecia]

Why would they do this?

Because it was regulating a problem that by and large did not exist.

You know, that could just mean that the regulation is doing an amazing job.

[Vassenor]

Also if this is such a popular thing why was the FCC reduced to faking support for it by stealing people's identities?

[Salandriagado]

Why would they do this?

Because it was regulating a problem that by and large did not exist.

Except that it did. See Verizon-Netflix, etc.

[UniversalCommons]

Anywhere where there are different political opinions or alternative viewpoints that don't support commercialism would be shut out if there was no justified way to make money. The alt-right, antifa, occupy wall street, all of this is a pain in the ass for government and business. There is no reason they would not shut down this kind of mess because it has different opinions on the left or right.

Corporations are starting to act like people with viewpoints because now of course they are people are under the new laws. The only thing that should be treated as a person is a person.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Why would they do this?

So Time Warner and all the other ISPs make loads of money.