R.I.P. Net Neutrality

nolaegghead

tenpenny_05 said:

lkapigian said:

Will this affect , ahem, adult browsing

There is waaaay, waaaaaaaaaaay, waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much money in porn for it to be affected. You're good.

If a chick-fil-a type family was running an ISP, they could just block anything they wanted that they considered a sin.  I wouldn't worry about this with the big public ISPs, but it could be legal for them to decide what you can or can't see.  Or throttle back the bandwidth so your pornhub videos are unwatchable.

There will be a big public pushback with any ISP that regulates a free internet, and this will be tied up in the courts for a long time before we see any movement. 

lkapigian

nolaegghead said:

tenpenny_05 said:

lkapigian said:

Will this affect , ahem, adult browsing

There is waaaay, waaaaaaaaaaay, waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much money in porn for it to be affected. You're good.

If a chick-fil-a type family was running an ISP, they could just block anything they wanted that they considered a sin.  I wouldn't worry about this with the big public ISPs, but it could be legal for them to decide what you can or can't see.  Or throttle back the bandwidth so your pornhub videos are unwatchable.

There will be a big public pushback with any ISP that regulates a free internet, and this will be tied up in the courts for a long time before we see any movement. 

My girlfriend hates it when I "Buffer" during sex

billt01

lkapigian said:

Gulfcoastguy said:

Google just wants to take over more.

That is good, i have a Boatload of Google Stock

and my bitcoin bubble has yet to pop...

tenpenny_05

nolaegghead said:

If a chick-fil-a type family was running an ISP....

This is a terrible example and barely a possibility.  But even if it were to happen, literally nothing is stopping you from going one more line down the list of ISPs and choose the Larry Flint type provider. 

pgprescott

nolaegghead said:

tenpenny_05 said:

Does anybody remember what we did a year and a half ago before we had net neutrality?  Must not have been too bad....

I do.  Some of the telecoms where blocking certain types of traffic, like bit torrent, and other services from competitors were slowed down, there are plenty of documented issues.  The telecoms would come back and say there were just testing something or another. 

Next time around, they will have a law giving express permission to offer tiered services.  So netflix might have to pay more to the ISPs because they compete with the ISPs services.  Netflix will have to pay more to get back what they're losing in bandwidth.  Price will be passed on to the consumer. 

Trump will just call it “the affordable telecommunications regulatory action”. voila, just like healthcare it’s gonna save you money! 

lkapigian

nolaegghead

tenpenny_05 said:

nolaegghead said:

If a chick-fil-a type family was running an ISP....

This is a terrible example and barely a possibility.  But even if it were to happen, literally nothing is stopping you from going one more line down the list of ISPs and choose the Larry Flint type provider. 

It is an unsavory example, but not out of the realm of possibility, unless you are suggesting that families with strong religious convictions are unable to start an ISP business. Most people don't have but one or two ISPs offering service to their homes.

pgprescott

Conservatives should take note at the break neck speed at which this guy is peeling pack the layers of crap that has strangled our wonderful economy for years. All this amidst a very hostile do nothing Congress and dishonest at best MSM. Just wait til the real hit starts happening. Whoooooooo! The more they protest, the better job I know he’s doing. It’s gonna be real hard to run against an incredibly strong economy and staggering growth. They know that and that’s why the want so desperately to stop him. 

HeavyG

tenpenny_05 said:

nolaegghead said:

If a chick-fil-a type family was running an ISP....

This is a terrible example and barely a possibility.  But even if it were to happen, literally nothing is stopping you from going one more line down the list of ISPs and choose the Larry Flint type provider. 

Most communities don't really have many choices for their internet access. Many communities may have just one service provider.

tenpenny_05

HeavyG said:

tenpenny_05 said:

nolaegghead said:

If a chick-fil-a type family was running an ISP....

This is a terrible example and barely a possibility.  But even if it were to happen, literally nothing is stopping you from going one more line down the list of ISPs and choose the Larry Flint type provider. 

Most communities don't really have many choices for their internet access. Many communities may have just one service provider.

I see what you are saying, but this situation would only expand the market. Literally anybody can be an ISP, so if you see an area being under-served by lack of porn, you stand to make money.

I'm not saying repealing net-neutrality doesn't have its down sides, just that we've survived it before, and there is even a chance things could get better.  The whole thing will likely self regulate.

DMW

tenpenny_05 said:

HeavyG said:

tenpenny_05 said:

nolaegghead said:

If a chick-fil-a type family was running an ISP....

This is a terrible example and barely a possibility.  But even if it were to happen, literally nothing is stopping you from going one more line down the list of ISPs and choose the Larry Flint type provider. 

Most communities don't really have many choices for their internet access. Many communities may have just one service provider.

I see what you are saying, but this situation would only expand the market. Literally anybody can be an ISP, so if you see an area being under-served by lack of porn, you stand to make money.

I'm not saying repealing net-neutrality doesn't have its down sides, just that we've survived it before, and there is even a chance things could get better.  The whole thing will likely self regulate.

Not really. To be a competitive ISP in a market, you need fiber or cable from you to your customers. Most markets limit randomly stringing cable or digging trenches. Until 5G is here, starting a competitive ISP is not that easy.

The incumbents got their cable plants via concessions from state/local gov. It's a monopoly for all intents and purposes. As such, it should be regulated similar to other utilities. These regulations should not apply to unlicensed wireless, as that's fair game for anyone. 

Gulfcoastguy

tenpenny_05 said:

nolaegghead said:

If a chick-fil-a type family was running an ISP....

This is a terrible example and barely a possibility.  But even if it were to happen, literally nothing is stopping you from going one more line down the list of ISPs and choose the Larry Flint type provider. 

There are two cable companies in my area. There are also two dish companies but one of the cable companies owns one of the dish companies. Now technically there are several cellular services but only one with good coverage and they charge by the data used. I spent yesterday morning trying to negotiate a lower rate from my current one after the 12 month promotional rate expired.  Most of my state doesn't even have that many choices. 

nolaegghead

tenpenny_05 said:

HeavyG said:

tenpenny_05 said:

nolaegghead said:

If a chick-fil-a type family was running an ISP....

This is a terrible example and barely a possibility.  But even if it were to happen, literally nothing is stopping you from going one more line down the list of ISPs and choose the Larry Flint type provider. 

Most communities don't really have many choices for their internet access. Many communities may have just one service provider.

I see what you are saying, but this situation would only expand the market. Literally anybody can be an ISP, so if you see an area being under-served by lack of porn, you stand to make money.

I'm not saying repealing net-neutrality doesn't have its down sides, just that we've survived it before, and there is even a chance things could get better.  The whole thing will likely self regulate.

Pros For Net Neutrality
No Restrictions: Currently, there are no restrictions on what parts of the Internet that people can access, except for what local governments decide. For example, there are no restrictions or preferences over emailing, file sharing, instant messaging (IM), Voice over IP (VoIP), Video Conferencing, Podcasts, blogs, RSS feeds, USENET, etc. No Throttling: Currently, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) can not change the download or upload transfer rates depending on what people are accessing. No Censorship: There are no restrictions on what or how much anyone can upload or download besides connection rates. Capitalism: Net Neutrality promotes a level playing field for competing companies, and allows start-ups easier access to new potential customers. Net Neutrality is equated to a free market. Cons Against Net Neutrality
Restrictions/Censorship: ISPs, in addition to governments, can decide what parts of the Internet that people can access and what parts are blocked. For instance, ISPs could block peer to peer file transfers. Additionally, ISPs could censor criticism against themselves, other companies, or politicians that they favor. Anti-Competition: Similar to the previous con, ISPs could block or prevent access to their competitors products, services, or web pages. Thus have restrictions against competition. Throttling: ISPs can decide what types of services have prefer transfer rates. For instance, Google's Gmail could be fast why their competitors Microsoft’s Hotmail could be slower, depending on how much both companies pay the Internet Service Providers. Another common example would be high data transfers, such as peer to peer file transfers, could have slow rates than regular shorter data transfer, such as email. Money: ISPs could charge more money for more access to the Internet. ISPs believe that heavier users of the Internet should pay more. This extra money could be used to increase the bandwidth of the Internet for everyone and drive prices down. However, ISPs are already extremely profits and they can just as easily increase prices for everyone. Keep in mind, that Internet connection prices should be decreases why bandwidth increases. However in many parts of the world, this is not the case. Monitoring: There is already a lot of monitoring on the Internet, however without Net Neutrality, ISPs could literally monitor everything that their customers do on the Internet and sell or use that information as they choose.

fishlessman

wait.....wait......wait, is this gonna slow down my @aol.com,  my flip phone im ok with that

JohnInCarolina

DMW said:

tenpenny_05 said:

HeavyG said:

tenpenny_05 said:

nolaegghead said:

If a chick-fil-a type family was running an ISP....

This is a terrible example and barely a possibility.  But even if it were to happen, literally nothing is stopping you from going one more line down the list of ISPs and choose the Larry Flint type provider. 

Most communities don't really have many choices for their internet access. Many communities may have just one service provider.

I see what you are saying, but this situation would only expand the market. Literally anybody can be an ISP, so if you see an area being under-served by lack of porn, you stand to make money.

I'm not saying repealing net-neutrality doesn't have its down sides, just that we've survived it before, and there is even a chance things could get better.  The whole thing will likely self regulate.

Not really. To be a competitive ISP in a market, you need fiber or cable from you to your customers. Most markets limit randomly stringing cable or digging trenches. Until 5G is here, starting a competitive ISP is not that easy.

The incumbents got their cable plants via concessions from state/local gov. It's a monopoly for all intents and purposes. As such, it should be regulated similar to other utilities. These regulations should not apply to unlicensed wireless, as that's fair game for anyone. 

Yeah, well, that’s just like... your opinion, man.

DMW

JohnInCarolina said:

DMW said:

tenpenny_05 said:

HeavyG said:

tenpenny_05 said:

nolaegghead said:

If a chick-fil-a type family was running an ISP....

This is a terrible example and barely a possibility.  But even if it were to happen, literally nothing is stopping you from going one more line down the list of ISPs and choose the Larry Flint type provider. 

Most communities don't really have many choices for their internet access. Many communities may have just one service provider.

I see what you are saying, but this situation would only expand the market. Literally anybody can be an ISP, so if you see an area being under-served by lack of porn, you stand to make money.

I'm not saying repealing net-neutrality doesn't have its down sides, just that we've survived it before, and there is even a chance things could get better.  The whole thing will likely self regulate.

Not really. To be a competitive ISP in a market, you need fiber or cable from you to your customers. Most markets limit randomly stringing cable or digging trenches. Until 5G is here, starting a competitive ISP is not that easy.

The incumbents got their cable plants via concessions from state/local gov. It's a monopoly for all intents and purposes. As such, it should be regulated similar to other utilities. These regulations should not apply to unlicensed wireless, as that's fair game for anyone. 

Yeah, well, that’s just like... your opinion, man.

Only the portion above that I bolded is opinion...

lkapigian

JohnInCarolina said:

DMW said:

tenpenny_05 said:

HeavyG said:

tenpenny_05 said:

nolaegghead said:

If a chick-fil-a type family was running an ISP....

This is a terrible example and barely a possibility.  But even if it were to happen, literally nothing is stopping you from going one more line down the list of ISPs and choose the Larry Flint type provider. 

Most communities don't really have many choices for their internet access. Many communities may have just one service provider.

I see what you are saying, but this situation would only expand the market. Literally anybody can be an ISP, so if you see an area being under-served by lack of porn, you stand to make money.

I'm not saying repealing net-neutrality doesn't have its down sides, just that we've survived it before, and there is even a chance things could get better.  The whole thing will likely self regulate.

Not really. To be a competitive ISP in a market, you need fiber or cable from you to your customers. Most markets limit randomly stringing cable or digging trenches. Until 5G is here, starting a competitive ISP is not that easy.

The incumbents got their cable plants via concessions from state/local gov. It's a monopoly for all intents and purposes. As such, it should be regulated similar to other utilities. These regulations should not apply to unlicensed wireless, as that's fair game for anyone. 

Yeah, well, that’s just like... your opinion, man.

https://youtu.be/pWdd6_ZxX8c

Skiddymarker

The way I understand it, 3 of the 5 FCC directors are appointed by the current admin including the Chair. The FCC is very political as it will swing to whatever with any change in the administration. 
Net neutrality is a no brainer, which is why more than 80% of average folks wantt it left alone. 
In Canada the big telecoms have been pretty much told their ISP operations must remain neutral, period. They keep trying to change the landscape, but our regulator does not change when we flip our governments. 

nolaegghead

Skiddymarker said:

The way I understand it, 3 of the 5 FCC directors are appointed by the current admin including the Chair. The FCC is very political as it will swing to whatever with any change in the administration. 
Net neutrality is a no brainer, which is why more than 80% of average folks wantt it left alone. 
In Canada the big telecoms have been pretty much told their ISP operations must remain neutral, period. They keep trying to change the landscape, but our regulator does not change when we flip our governments. 

What we're dealing with is government "of the people", by the Trump, for the big business.  Git in the door conning the feeble minded with some demagoguery, and then burn it all down.

HeavyG

tenpenny_05 said:

HeavyG said:

tenpenny_05 said:

nolaegghead said:

If a chick-fil-a type family was running an ISP....

This is a terrible example and barely a possibility.  But even if it were to happen, literally nothing is stopping you from going one more line down the list of ISPs and choose the Larry Flint type provider. 

Most communities don't really have many choices for their internet access. Many communities may have just one service provider.

I see what you are saying, but this situation would only expand the market. Literally anybody can be an ISP, so if you see an area being under-served by lack of porn, you stand to make money.

I'm not saying repealing net-neutrality doesn't have its down sides, just that we've survived it before, and there is even a chance things could get better.  The whole thing will likely self regulate.

Others have already addressed much of your comment so I won't repeat all that.

I will add one thing tho - many state legislatures have passed laws to prevent local governments from creating their own network to provide internet connections/service to their residents. That legislation was bought and paid for by the big telcos.

Big telcos are also still spending money to buy legislators in states that may currently allow local governments to build their own networks to change those laws so that they can't offer that service.

The big telcos are also spending  a lot of money to create federal regulations that would prevent states from enacting their own net neutrality rules. Conservatives believe in Federalism except when it gets in the way of something they want to do nationwide.

Internet service has become an essential tool/service for everyone. As such it should be treated/regulated as a public utility.

tenpenny_05

I hate to be the forever contrarian, but its not a political thing. Its a money thing. We can blame the republicans just because they are in power.  If the democrats were in power the companies would be padding their pockets to make this decision.

JohnInCarolina

tenpenny_05 said:

I hate to be the forever contrarian, but its not a political thing. Its a money thing. We can blame the republicans just because they are in power.  If the democrats were in power the companies would be padding their pockets to make this decision.

The regulations were put in place by the Obama administration.  They have been repealed under the Trump admin.  

Why weren’t companies able to pad the pockets of Democrats under Obama to prevent these regs from being put up in the first place?

nolaegghead

tenpenny_05 said:

I hate to be the forever contrarian, but its not a political thing. Its a money thing. We can blame the republicans just because they are in power.  If the democrats were in power the companies would be padding their pockets to make this decision.

Seriously, man, policy politics are driven by money.  Not everyone is going to sell their souls to the corporation.  No, you are wrong, (except right about contrarian part..).  The dems resisted the corporate lobbying for lifting net neutrality.  I think most republicans would too.  This current climate is a huge outlier.

fishlessman

JohnInCarolina said:

tenpenny_05 said:

I hate to be the forever contrarian, but its not a political thing. Its a money thing. We can blame the republicans just because they are in power.  If the democrats were in power the companies would be padding their pockets to make this decision.

The regulations were put in place by the Obama administration.  They have been repealed under the Trump admin.  

Why weren’t companies able to pad the pockets of Democrats under Obama to prevent these regs from being put up in the first place?

  other companies were doing the padding, just may be

JohnInCarolina

fishlessman said:

JohnInCarolina said:

tenpenny_05 said:

I hate to be the forever contrarian, but its not a political thing. Its a money thing. We can blame the republicans just because they are in power.  If the democrats were in power the companies would be padding their pockets to make this decision.

The regulations were put in place by the Obama administration.  They have been repealed under the Trump admin.  

Why weren’t companies able to pad the pockets of Democrats under Obama to prevent these regs from being put up in the first place?

  other companies were doing the padding, just may be

He seemed to be arguing that the outcome would be the same. 

tenpenny_05

I think the industry underestimated the possibility of net neutrality actually becoming an thing in the first place.  They came and played hard ball this time around.

jazimmerman

nolaegghead said:

tenpenny_05 said:

HeavyG said:

tenpenny_05 said:

nolaegghead said:

If a chick-fil-a type family was running an ISP....

This is a terrible example and barely a possibility.  But even if it were to happen, literally nothing is stopping you from going one more line down the list of ISPs and choose the Larry Flint type provider. 

Most communities don't really have many choices for their internet access. Many communities may have just one service provider.

I see what you are saying, but this situation would only expand the market. Literally anybody can be an ISP, so if you see an area being under-served by lack of porn, you stand to make money.

I'm not saying repealing net-neutrality doesn't have its down sides, just that we've survived it before, and there is even a chance things could get better.  The whole thing will likely self regulate.

Pros For Net Neutrality

1. No Restrictions: Currently, there are no restrictions on what parts of the Internet that people can access, except for what local governments decide. For example, there are no restrictions or preferences over emailing, file sharing, instant messaging (IM), Voice over IP (VoIP), Video Conferencing, Podcasts, blogs, RSS feeds, USENET, etc.
2. No Throttling: Currently, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) can not change the download or upload transfer rates depending on what people are accessing.
3. No Censorship: There are no restrictions on what or how much anyone can upload or download besides connection rates.
4. Capitalism: Net Neutrality promotes a level playing field for competing companies, and allows start-ups easier access to new potential customers. Net Neutrality is equated to a free market.

Cons Against Net Neutrality

1. Restrictions/Censorship: ISPs, in addition to governments, can decide what parts of the Internet that people can access and what parts are blocked. For instance, ISPs could block peer to peer file transfers. Additionally, ISPs could censor criticism against themselves, other companies, or politicians that they favor.
2. Anti-Competition: Similar to the previous con, ISPs could block or prevent access to their competitors products, services, or web pages. Thus have restrictions against competition.
3. Throttling: ISPs can decide what types of services have prefer transfer rates. For instance, Google's Gmail could be fast why their competitors Microsoft’s Hotmail could be slower, depending on how much both companies pay the Internet Service Providers. Another common example would be high data transfers, such as peer to peer file transfers, could have slow rates than regular shorter data transfer, such as email.
4. Money: ISPs could charge more money for more access to the Internet. ISPs believe that heavier users of the Internet should pay more. This extra money could be used to increase the bandwidth of the Internet for everyone and drive prices down. However, ISPs are already extremely profits and they can just as easily increase prices for everyone. Keep in mind, that Internet connection prices should be decreases why bandwidth increases. However in many parts of the world, this is not the case.
5. Monitoring: There is already a lot of monitoring on the Internet, however without Net Neutrality, ISPs could literally monitor everything that their customers do on the Internet and sell or use that information as they choose.

On the no restrictions - I remember the days when you had to subscribe to a “business class” service from certain ISPs to use a VPN over their service. I can see this type of tiering coming back to increase revenue or reduce consumption by work from home types.

This is 

DoubleEgger

pgprescott said:

Conservatives should take note at the break neck speed at which this guy is peeling pack the layers of crap that has strangled our wonderful economy for years. All this amidst a very hostile do nothing Congress and dishonest at best MSM. Just wait til the real hit starts happening. Whoooooooo! The more they protest, the better job I know he’s doing. It’s gonna be real hard to run against an incredibly strong economy and staggering growth. They know that and that’s why the want so desperately to stop him. 

Net neutrality is strangling our economy? WTF? 

JohnInCarolina

“If we don’t stop Trump now, he’ll actually make America great again!!!” - said nobody, ever

pgprescott

JohnInCarolina said:

“If we don’t stop Trump now, he’ll actually make America great again!!!” - said nobody, ever

Especially the really smart guys who wouldn’t admit a success of his in the face of incontrovertible truth. It’s gonna be a long and painful journey for you my friend.