FCC to repeal Net Neutrality Bill

[Petrasylvania]

I think it's also FUCKOBAMA.

Ajit Pai is an Obama appointee.

He didn't push this shit while Obama was in office.

[Salandriagado]

So what innovations are US ISPs driving?

If I could predict what innovation will next take off I would be in the top .01% instead of just the top 1%.

In 2012, a Canadian ISP figured out a way to deliver gigabit speeds over copper cable. The method of doing so is public knowledge. Any ISP in the US could have implemented it then. Zero of them did. Tell me more about how these ISPs are just dying to innovate but being held back by the mean government.

[Salandriagado]

What we really need is the possibility of new competition on he ISP market. Even if they did pass this, if competition offered “unlimited” plans like phones do now it would render this particular piece of legislation ineffective since people will obviously flock to the cheapest, unrestricted access available.

But again, there needs to be a possibility for new players to enter the game. And with US bureaucracy in play, it’s unlikely to happen soon.

Restrictions on the customer side aren't the issue. It's restrictions on the website side that are troublesome.

[Karjin]

"Unlimited" plans are still limited. It's just when you go over the limit theybseverely throttle your speed.

And that’s when another ISP ups their cap, and it becomes a race to who can provide the most for the least. When companies compete, the consumer wins.

Basically. It isn't "unlimited" in that you get unlimited access you pay for, it's "unlimited" in that they just never cut off your access to the internet.

If I’m understanding you right, it’s like how even if you haven’t paid your phone bill, you can still dial emergency, right?

[United Christian]

Here's my thing about Net Neutrality. I don't care if Netflix pays ATT $3.3 Billion to speed up their service on that network. If Netflix is typically 1.6 Gs and they pay for 2.3 Gs that's fine as long as two things don't happen. 1) Consumers aren't charged access to certain websites and 2) 3rd Party sites aren't slowed down. So if Netflix pays for 2.3 Gs instead of 1.6 Gs, Hulu can't be slowed from 1.6 to 1.3. And if I pay $60/mo for internet, I can't be charged and extra $5 for Social Media. Other than that I frankly don't care.

[Major-Tom]

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

Easy answer; greed.

[Major-Tom]

Ajit Pai is an Obama appointee.

He didn't push this shit while Obama was in office.

He kinda did...

[The Federal Kingdom Of Zuhi]

I'm staying optimistic, this has been shot down last time.

[Sane Outcasts]

He didn't push this shit while Obama was in office.

He kinda did...

His opinion didn't matter as much because he wasn't in a position to affect policy until Trump made him Head of the FCC and the deciding vote on a five person board with four other members split down the middle.

[Major-Tom]

He kinda did...

His opinion didn't matter as much because he wasn't in a position to affect policy until Trump made him Head of the FCC and the deciding vote on a five person board with four other members split down the middle.

Well, of course. But now it's more dangerous.

[MERIZoC]

Ajit Pai is an Obama appointee.

He didn't push this shit while Obama was in office.

lol you're so fucking wrong.

[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

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

So? For what reason should the government interfere with this?

[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

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.

If it is truly harmful to the consumer, the said consumers would, or should, choose services from a different corporation. Corporations won’t do this unless all others do, because if they do, and others don’t, then it’ll be a push factor away from themselves, putting them out of business

[Vassenor]

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

So? For what reason should the government interfere with this?

So do you have any justifications for this that aren't just GUBMINT BAD?

[The Portland Territory]

So? For what reason should the government interfere with this?

So do you have any justifications for this that aren't just GUBMINT BAD?

That’s not my justification. Mine is why should the government interfere with voluntary exchange?

[Vassenor]

So do you have any justifications for this that aren't just GUBMINT BAD?

That’s not my justification. Mine is why should the government interfere with voluntary exchange?

It's not really voluntary when ISPs hold an effective monopoly.

[The Portland Territory]

That’s not my justification. Mine is why should the government interfere with voluntary exchange?

It's not really voluntary when ISPs hold an effective monopoly.

They hold monopolies because the government funds said ISP’s millions and millions dollars each year and puts damaging regulations on that industry, making it near impossible for new start ups to gain traction

[Vassenor]

It's not really voluntary when ISPs hold an effective monopoly.

They hold monopolies because the government funds said ISP’s millions and millions dollars each year and puts damaging regulations on that industry, making it near impossible for new start ups to gain traction

And how many of those regulations are the result of lobbying from the Big Three?

Particularly the "municipal broadband" laws that stop local governments from setting up their own infrastructure.

[Ethel mermania]

If I could predict what innovation will next take off I would be in the top .01% instead of just the top 1%.

In 2012, a Canadian ISP figured out a way to deliver gigabit speeds over copper cable. The method of doing so is public knowledge. Any ISP in the US could have implemented it then. Zero of them did. Tell me more about how these ISPs are just dying to innovate but being held back by the mean government.

G.fast? Didn't work as advertised

[Great Nepal]

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.

If it is truly harmful to the consumer, the said consumers would, or should, choose services from a different corporation.

Once again if netflix is slow but youtube is running fine, customers are not going to blame their ISP for throttling netflix - they're going to blame netflix because for most of them internet is just websites. It is quite irrelevant what they should do.

Corporations won’t do this unless all others do, because if they do, and others don’t, then it’ll be a push factor away from themselves, putting them out of business

So until one other company providing wired internet in area does it? Also once again this isn't hypothetical 'could happens' - companies have literally done everything from blocking voip because it competed with their phone business to redirecting google searches to their website for extra revenue.

[The Portland Territory]

They hold monopolies because the government funds said ISP’s millions and millions dollars each year and puts damaging regulations on that industry, making it near impossible for new start ups to gain traction

And how many of those regulations are the result of lobbying from the Big Three?

Particularly the "municipal broadband" laws that stop local governments from setting up their own infrastructure.

I’m not going to argue with you in this one because you are correct. The system is in favor of the large corporations because the large corporations control the playing field.

[Telconi]

That’s not my justification. Mine is why should the government interfere with voluntary exchange?

It's not really voluntary when ISPs hold an effective monopoly.

But they don't yo...

[Herador]

It's not really voluntary when ISPs hold an effective monopoly.

But they don't yo...

I have one option of ISP, AT&T, and they know it. The service is awful, the lines are from early 2000, there are outages regularly, and they put an absurd cap on my data that costs a frankly ridiculous amount for the already measly 5mb down speed I get (it's worth mentioning that every speed test I've taken since picking up this service has put it at ~3.5 down/0.5 up).

There are no other options for me, and this isn't an uncommon occurrence. This is an effective monopoly.

[Telconi]

It was sarcasm. They arenter getting shit. 90% of our service is copper throughout. Because the regs are inhibiting us being able to re-do systems.

Ah, I see. I misread Vass' post.

I gotta ask, since you're in telco and this is your area of expertise, is it the instability that Title II repositioning and the word-promise of forbearances brought to the broadband sector, or is it something else that's stopping you guys from redoing the systems that are laid out?

Basically it's the promise of forbearance and the risk of it. Under Title II broadband is limited by the same provisions as telephone serive, largely that's a system maintainable issue. Why put glass in when we're too busy jackhammering up quarter miles stretches of concrete to restore some yahoo's 2 mbps DSL line. The regulations simply make it too risky to switch any area without obscene demand to glass systems. Every attempt at upgrade risks fines and controls being levied. Not to mention the shitstorm of easement rights that would need to be pulled.

[Telconi]

But they don't yo...

I have one option of ISP, AT&T, and they know it. The service is awful, the lines are from early 2000, there are outages regularly, and they put an absurd cap on my data that costs a frankly ridiculous amount for the already measly 5mb down speed I get (it's worth mentioning that every speed test I've taken since picking up this service has put it at ~3.5 down/0.5 up).

There are no other options for me, and this isn't an uncommon occurrence. This is an effective monopoly.

While I can't speak for your situation, this is at best a rare occurance, over 99% of Americans have access to sat Internet exceeding 10 mbps.