Meh, Reddit got people riled up. Competition will keep balance for the most part in the U.S. people seem to ignore that. Example: In the past few years it's gone from Google going on about bringing their 1000Mbps lines to major cities then now various companies offering those lines. I don't live in some major city. There's 2 companies atm in my neighborhood that offer 1000Mbps lines. The kicker is At&t (wow) is the cheapest at ($80) beating the other company by $10. I don't really have a need for a line like that personally. I'm happy at 250Mbps up and down at $45 total, fees included. While a lot of rural area's may not see fiber for awhile it's definitely spreading. Heck my tablet and phone can't even take advantage of a 250 line. Usually topping out at around 100Mbps. S6 edge and some random tablet. Could be my router which is not the best but not junk either. Point being companies will have to be competitive to keep customers. If companies start doing stuff that people don't like they'll switch companies. If they all start doing it upsetting enough people I'm sure at that point something will be done. All the end of days stuff is way over the top.
Sounds like a response from one of the millions of fake accounts the news has been reporting that were submitted to the FCC because this decision had to be made public and accept open feedback before it was concluded.
Really? That's a first. Slightly hilarious you just called me a fake account or even a FCC bot? I can't actually believe it. lmao! How did the internet ever survive or innovate prior to 2015. Rolls eyes.
Added: The doomsdayers atm are way over the top. Competition does work where you have plenty of choices! And if not which is a big if people will be all over ISP's who mess up. Then I'll worry about it. As of right now. Life goes on.
The only way this can work is if no single company is allowed to monopolise an area/region whatever in providing internet connectivity. In the UK it means that BT is not able to prevent competitors from replacing them for 'the last half mile' so in the UK you can use whoever you want as an ISP and there are a lot to choose from. If they can do that in the USA then Comcast etc. will have to be competitive, they won't be able to have multiple tiers of internet connectivity, because if they do, someone else will just come along and replace them, but thats the only way, there must not be any legislation etc. that prevents competition from other service providers regardless of location.
Meh, Reddit got people riled up. Competition will keep balance for the most part in the U.S. people seem to ignore that. Example: In the past few years it's gone from Google going on about bringing their 1000Mbps lines to major cities then now various companies offering those lines. I don't live in some major city. There's 2 companies atm in my neighborhood that offer 1000Mbps lines. The kicker is At&t (wow) is the cheapest at ($80) beating the other company by $10. I don't really have a need for a line like that personally. I'm happy at 250Mbps up and down at $45 total, fees included. While a lot of rural area's may not see fiber for awhile it's definitely spreading. Heck my tablet and phone can't even take advantage of a 250 line. Usually topping out at around 100Mbps. S6 edge and some random tablet. Could be my router which is not the best but not junk either. Point being companies will have to be competitive to keep customers. If companies start doing stuff that people don't like they'll switch companies. If they all start doing it upsetting enough people I'm sure at that point something will be done. All the end of days stuff is way over the top.
Sounds like a response from one of the millions of fake accounts the news has been reporting that were submitted to the FCC because this decision had to be made public and accept open feedback before it was concluded.
Really? That's a first. Slightly hilarious you just called me a fake account or even a FCC bot? I can't actually believe it. lmao! How did the internet ever survive or innovate prior to 2015. Rolls eyes.
Added: The doomsdayers atm are way over the top. Competition does work where you have plenty of choices! And if not which is a big if people will be all over ISP's who mess up. Then I'll worry about it. As of right now. Life goes on.
Apparently you weren't reading many of the comments relegating to many areas only having 1 choice, so the regulation (if it actually does get completely overturned) can strong arm these people legally to pay more for the exact same service they have now.
As for people curious to what happens now that the vote has passed, I saw a link for this article going into more detail if anyone is curious:
Its not completely doom and gloom yet but the train is on the tracks. Just keep pressuring your state unless you like paying more for the same or less quality like my quoted friend here.
Choice = I meant over all across the U.S. No company has a monopoly indefinitely here atm. No I won't contact anyone and "bulb, blub" Because nothing negative has happened. The sky hasn't fallen. End of worlds isn't here. And again the minute an isp messes up it will get everyone' attention and I'll worry about it then. Even if its some rural entity it will grab everyone' attention. I'm basically inline with Quizzical's frame of thought for the most part. Competition does work. If you live rural it's just the way it is atm. I know that choice very well. I just bought my house in April. I had a choice. 160 acres literally in the middle of no where. No cell phone towers nothing. I loved the features of the land but hated the house and was worried about its age. Other was new construction in urban area. I choose new construction just to build equity and use as a stepping stone. Life goes on. When something happens I'll worry about it then. Sorry about typos or anything else. My phone's kinda crap. Been in water to many times. Was using my pc earlier.
There's already a thread on this why start another?
Because the decision just came out today that its really happening? hence a new thread. No one forced you to read it anyways. The other thread is full people trying to flaunt their e peen rather than sharing information.
Choice = I meant over all across the U.S. No company has a monopoly indefinitely here atm. No I won't contact anyone and "bulb, blub" Because nothing negative has happened. The sky hasn't fallen. End of worlds isn't here. And again the minute an isp messes up it will get everyone' attention and I'll worry about it then. Even if its some rural entity it will grab everyone' attention. I'm basically inline with Quizzical's frame of thought for the most part. Competition does work. If you live rural it's just the way it is atm. I know that choice very well. I just bought my house in April. I had a choice. 160 acres literally in the middle of no where. No cell phone towers nothing. I loved the features of the land but hated the house and was worried about its age. Other was new construction in urban area. I choose new construction just to build equity and use as a stepping stone. Life goes on. When something happens I'll worry about it then. Sorry about typos or anything else. My phone's kinda crap. Been in water to many times. Was using my pc earlier.
No company has a monopoly indefinitely? the problem there is that they have a monopoly now, unless that changes then choice does not exist beyond the old 'do you want internet yes/no' choice, how much you pay is very much dependant on the whims of whoever is providing internet services in your area, legislation needs to go in now to take away the rights of any ISP to limit or restrict other ISP's from competing with them in the areas they operate, without exception! anything less would be anti consumer, and it would be extremely disingenous of you to suggest otherwise.
"What does it mean for gamers": BFF's team bagging episode with lag https://youtu.be/ZfTyv_Ahd9g?t=1m24s Pretty much this, just not only the wife's Netflix will have priority, but your entire area
Meh, Reddit got people riled up. Competition will keep balance for the most part in the U.S. people seem to ignore that. Example: In the past few years it's gone from Google going on about bringing their 1000Mbps lines to major cities then now various companies offering those lines. I don't live in some major city. There's 2 companies atm in my neighborhood that offer 1000Mbps lines. The kicker is At&t (wow) is the cheapest at ($80) beating the other company by $10. I don't really have a need for a line like that personally. I'm happy at 250Mbps up and down at $45 total, fees included. While a lot of rural area's may not see fiber for awhile it's definitely spreading. Heck my tablet and phone can't even take advantage of a 250 line. Usually topping out at around 100Mbps. S6 edge and some random tablet. Could be my router which is not the best but not junk either. Point being companies will have to be competitive to keep customers. If companies start doing stuff that people don't like they'll switch companies. If they all start doing it upsetting enough people I'm sure at that point something will be done. All the end of days stuff is way over the top.
Keep making pretend competition is rampant and that the big 3 ISPs don't make backroom deals with each other on territory lines and available packages.
As that would be criminal to do so I'm assuming any such "agreements" are more often tactic than directly negotiated.
While illegal activities do occur, they are the outlier rather than the norm, at least in my experience.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Choice = I meant over all across the U.S. No company has a monopoly indefinitely here atm. No I won't contact anyone and "bulb, blub" Because nothing negative has happened. The sky hasn't fallen. End of worlds isn't here. And again the minute an isp messes up it will get everyone' attention and I'll worry about it then. Even if its some rural entity it will grab everyone' attention. I'm basically inline with Quizzical's frame of thought for the most part. Competition does work. If you live rural it's just the way it is atm. I know that choice very well. I just bought my house in April. I had a choice. 160 acres literally in the middle of no where. No cell phone towers nothing. I loved the features of the land but hated the house and was worried about its age. Other was new construction in urban area. I choose new construction just to build equity and use as a stepping stone. Life goes on. When something happens I'll worry about it then. Sorry about typos or anything else. My phone's kinda crap. Been in water to many times. Was using my pc earlier.
No company has a monopoly indefinitely? the problem there is that they have a monopoly now, unless that changes then choice does not exist beyond the old 'do you want internet yes/no' choice, how much you pay is very much dependant on the whims of whoever is providing internet services in your area, legislation needs to go in now to take away the rights of any ISP to limit or restrict other ISP's from competing with them in the areas they operate, without exception! anything less would be anti consumer, and it would be extremely disingenous of you to suggest otherwise.
As a whole across the U.S.* even within those agreements which you speak of which are between certain companies. There' still multiple isp's typically operating in those areas unless rural. In rural cases those agreements likely have little to do with it rather than cost of laying line and the potential for profit. nothing' is stopping someone else who was not part of those agreements from coming in that area. Especially local isp providers! But yes I agree that the agreements could be counter productive but on the other hand a company lays lines and that areas market is already saturated vs Some place that needs lines. If prices were absurd I'd say you have a point. Which at$t and it' dsl packages were in my opinion. But surprised me to see them with a $80 1000Mbps offer. Pretty good no? If not fast enough I could get a slightly faster line from a local entity for $90. So do those agreements hurt innovation and competition or Not? Or is it just a case of fiber just hasn' reached a given area yet. I digress years back in the off topic section here I griped about those agreements wishing I could get fios in my state. Because Google sure wouldn' lay fiber in my town anytime soon and they were the ones really pushing 1 gig lines at the time.
I live in the UK, so I'm glad this doesn't affect me at all and I'm glad I have a choice of about 20 ISPs. Admittedly, there are only two actual networks which all traffic goes over (Virgin and BT) but BT are forced to allow other ISPs to use their lines, so there is plenty of competition.
My expectations of what this will mean for the US:
1) ISPs will go after the big content providers. Netflix, Amazon, Facebook, Google etc....whoever uses a lot of bandwidth will be targetted and forced to pay the ISPs money to ensure proper delivery to customers. Some of this cost will be passed on to consumers.
2) Bandwidth heavy fringe activities might suffer a bit. Lets face it, the majority of net users pretty much just watch netflix, read facebook and look things up on wikipedia. ISPs will thus focus on ensuring that this large market segment have the best deals available, but this will mean fringe activities are the most likely to suffer as they can't pay off the ISPs.
3) The political landscape might change. This is going to depend on just how much throttling / control the ISPs can get away with. ISPs are big business and controlled by small groups of individuals who are subject to shareholders. Its all about more money. So, when it comes to US elections, this very small group of people could easily decide to throttle / block sites that are opposed to their way of thinking (typically leftie sites). They can slowly but steadily shift the political spectrum to the right through controlling access to important content.
I'm not sure that ISPs are going to start offering different packages to consumers - "Signup to the streaming package to get the best netflix experience!" - I think that will very quickly lead to public outcry and the next President in 2020 (a democrat...) will immediately reinforce net neutrality. So, I think ISPs are more likely to target content providers instead and get big money out of them. Much easier to go to Netflix and say "give us $10m a month" than it is offering different packages to consumers.
There is also a risk that ISPs will try to double-dip - getting more money out of providers like Netflix and then also try to screw over consumers as well. If EA was an ISP, this would definitely happen! If anyone does go this route, expect massive outcry.
Don't assume that if there are a ton of regulations imposed, they'll be the regulations you want. Comcast can afford to hire a lot of lawyers and lobbyists. A small ISP that only serves one market can't. Who do you think that the regulations will be written to favor?
When regulation really took off in the United States in the 1930s, the effect in many industries was killing off a lot of small businesses and pushing consolidation of industries into fewer, larger businesses.
Don't assume that if there are a ton of regulations imposed, they'll be the regulations you want. Comcast can afford to hire a lot of lawyers and lobbyists. A small ISP that only serves one market can't. Who do you think that the regulations will be written to favor?
When regulation really took off in the United States in the 1930s, the effect in many industries was killing off a lot of small businesses and pushing consolidation of industries into fewer, larger businesses.
Removing net neutrality was heavily lobbied by large ISPs like Comcast.
By your own logic, that was a decision written in favor of heavily lobbying large ISPs and is likely to kill off a lot of small ISPs that didn't have power to affect that decision.
so does this only involve the U.S??? or does it include the whole world?? I havent got teh foggiest of anything significant about any of this but maybe thats cos i live in the EU but from my understanding this rule was only put in 2yrs ago and its just been scrapped (and i gather) going back to what it was previously so why all the hoo haa wam wam??
so does this only involve the U.S??? or does it include the whole world?? I havent got teh foggiest of anything significant about any of this but maybe thats cos i live in the EU but from my understanding this rule was only put in 2yrs ago and its just been scrapped (and i gather) going back to what it was previously so why all the hoo haa wam wam??
It's only for the US, EU still has (mostly) effective net neutrality laws.
Also the competition between ISPs works a lot better in most of the EU countries than in US so it's not that big a threat in EU.
However if large net service providers like Google will have to start paying US ISPs for access to their network, it might mean more advertisements, less money on developing internet services, and less free services, and that would affect whole world.
Don't assume that if there are a ton of regulations imposed, they'll be the regulations you want. Comcast can afford to hire a lot of lawyers and lobbyists. A small ISP that only serves one market can't. Who do you think that the regulations will be written to favor?
When regulation really took off in the United States in the 1930s, the effect in many industries was killing off a lot of small businesses and pushing consolidation of industries into fewer, larger businesses.
Removing net neutrality was heavily lobbied by large ISPs like Comcast.
By your own logic, that was a decision written in favor of heavily lobbying large ISPs and is likely to kill off a lot of small ISPs that didn't have power to affect that decision.
Quoted because people seem to ignore the fact that the largest internet companies wanted this repeal for a reason. I have yet to see a shred of logical, truthful evidence that shows how title II prevents these companies from expanding without utilizing the very things title II was there to prevent like charging extra money for things we should all be able to get/do at all times.
Considering that this only reverts to the rules as they were in early 2015, freaking out only makes sense if you thought the Internet was some dystopian wasteland in 2014 and has gotten massively better since then.
Either the sky will fall or else it won't. Most likely, returning to the light-touch regulatory regime that facilitated the rise of the Internet over the course of nearly 20 years preceding the FCC's arbitrary switch to Title II regulations in 2015 will similarly help facilitate future Internet improvements that we don't foresee today.
But it's also possible that ISPs will commonly roll out abusive and predatory business practices and block legitimate sites that they don't like or some such. If that happens, then the view that heavier regulation of the Internet is necessary will become prevalent all across the political spectrum rather than the Internet being just another domain in with the left wants more regulation and the right wants fewer. In that case, heavier regulations will come, hopefully in the form of Congress passing a bill properly authorizing heavier regulations.
And don't think that Congress is incapable of acting when there's overwhelming public support for an issue. It's hard to pass laws when half of the public is in favor and half against, and that's by design, but it's much easier to pass laws when there is broad popular support and few people opposed. For example, consider the CAN-SPAM act of 2003, which passed the Senate unanimously and the House by a vote of 392-5.
A voice of reason as always! Cheers! Edit: More competition = better product + cheaper services.
Even the "amazing" quizzical himself mentioned lack of competition. Competition can't equal better product if there is not competition. Just look at how difficult it is for Google, one of the richest companies in America, to get a foothold in the internet provider business. All I have to say is, use your heads because clearly you guys have not been.
Considering that this only reverts to the rules as they were in early 2015, freaking out only makes sense if you thought the Internet was some dystopian wasteland in 2014 and has gotten massively better since then.
Either the sky will fall or else it won't. Most likely, returning to the light-touch regulatory regime that facilitated the rise of the Internet over the course of nearly 20 years preceding the FCC's arbitrary switch to Title II regulations in 2015 will similarly help facilitate future Internet improvements that we don't foresee today.
But it's also possible that ISPs will commonly roll out abusive and predatory business practices and block legitimate sites that they don't like or some such. If that happens, then the view that heavier regulation of the Internet is necessary will become prevalent all across the political spectrum rather than the Internet being just another domain in with the left wants more regulation and the right wants fewer. In that case, heavier regulations will come, hopefully in the form of Congress passing a bill properly authorizing heavier regulations.
And don't think that Congress is incapable of acting when there's overwhelming public support for an issue. It's hard to pass laws when half of the public is in favor and half against, and that's by design, but it's much easier to pass laws when there is broad popular support and few people opposed. For example, consider the CAN-SPAM act of 2003, which passed the Senate unanimously and the House by a vote of 392-5.
A voice of reason as always! Cheers! Edit: More competition = better product + cheaper services.
Yes cause these changes spell more competition...lmfao
so does this only involve the U.S??? or does it include the whole world?? I
havent got teh foggiest of anything significant about any of this but
maybe thats cos i live in the EU but from my understanding this rule was
only put in 2yrs ago and its just been scrapped (and i gather) going
back to what it was previously so why all the hoo haa wam wam??
Because giving all control to the ISPs to throttle, block and generally
do as they seem fit with end-user access - generally leads to one
outcome - customers getting bent over and paying more for lesser quality
internet service than they previously had.
Thats why all the hoo haa and wam wam
FCC is 100% influenced by politics and as either dems or reps have majority control over FCC net neutrality comes and goes.
The
core issue is that FCC should NOT have the power over net neutrality as
they dont have to answer to the masses, and can pass rulings that over
80% of the general public are opposed to.
Congress should take
the power over Internet access from FCC, laws need to be passed where
FCC cant make the call just because the ISPs have paid off 3 FCC members
and can win a vote 3-2.
Its bullshit politics
Indeed, the FCC should work more like the CRTC in Canada which is far less political and works more like an extension of the courts that looks at facts, data and what is in the best interest of the public, they also actually listen to the public!
so does this only involve the U.S??? or does it include the whole world?? I havent got teh foggiest of anything significant about any of this but maybe thats cos i live in the EU but from my understanding this rule was only put in 2yrs ago and its just been scrapped (and i gather) going back to what it was previously so why all the hoo haa wam wam??
So, net neutrality revolves around one single definition - is the internet a "common carrier" or an "information provider"?
It used to be classified as an information provider. This essentially means it is a luxury service and you can easily live without it. Being a luxury service, providers were sort of allowed to do what they wanted, including tiered services, throttling / blocking etc.
However, the internet was founded on open principles - all traffic is equal - and most people adhered to that principle without needing too many regulations. The FCC also had some powers to curtail excessive behaviours.
What happened, though, is that from about 2005 - 2014, ISPs were steadily getting worse and worse. More and more blocking or throttling of services, usually without informing the public. The FCC stepped in where it could, but each case involved long drawn out court cases (which were very expensive to the tax payer) and most just resulted in the ISP altering their behaviour - no fines, nothing punitive, so no disincentive to do it again.
So, Obama implemented net neutrality - changing the internet from an information provider into a common carrier. This essentially recognised the importance of the internet in modern America, how it was no longer a luxury but virtually essential for modern life. By changing it to a common carrier, it brought it inline with other utilities, like gas and electric.
Being a common carrier means everyone has to be treated equally. No tiered pricing / services. You cannot pay more to get electricity before your neighbours, my water is not better because I pay more than you. Now, with net neutrality, you cannot pay more to get priority access to the internet. All electricity is treated equally. All water and gas is treated equally. Now, all internet traffic is treated equally.
This change empowered the FCC to enforce net neutrality and made it simpler to understand.
Now, we're taking a step backwards. The internet is once again being treated as a luxury in America, not as something essential for modern life. The FCC will once again have to return to complicated expensive cases to discourage ISPs from blocking content they don't like. ISPs can start offering tiered pricing, so if you want to stream 4k Netflix you'll have to make sure your ISP doesn't block it and that your package includes it. ISPs can use this change to screw over their competitors, but more importantly they can use their power to influence elections (e.g. by blocking / throttling prominent democratic sites).
The worst part about this whole thing is that Ajit Pai, the FCC guy pushing these changes, is flat out lying to the public, used to work for the ISPs so is already a corporate shill, and has ignored the public outcry. No doubt he will go back to working for ISPs once he's done with the FCC, enjoying some crazy big money from them. Essentially, ISPs have bribed their way to a law that lets them make more money at our expense.
Is it the end?
No. The FCC will still have some powers and if ISPs go too far, too fast then consumers will cry out, forcing change. Also, when Trump gets booted out in 2020, the next President will re-implement net neutrality anyway.
Don't assume that if there are a ton of regulations imposed, they'll be the regulations you want. Comcast can afford to hire a lot of lawyers and lobbyists. A small ISP that only serves one market can't. Who do you think that the regulations will be written to favor?
When regulation really took off in the United States in the 1930s, the effect in many industries was killing off a lot of small businesses and pushing consolidation of industries into fewer, larger businesses.
Lobbying laws need to change big time.
Should start by if any politician gets a payment from any special interest group their vote no longer counts due to conflict of interest.
Also anyone in politics should be required to have all their financials open and disclosed for life - to eliminate the loophole of "being paid after the vote".
This would also eliminate a lot of shit politicians whose sole purpose is to get that special interest money.
Considering changing the above laws has be agreed to by the very politicians who would be harmed by the changes, not likely to happen.
About the only chance of it occurring in the US is for someone to raise a lawsuit that gets heard on at the Supreme Court level and acted on by an activist court, which isn't what we have these days.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Only $9.99 extra a month to add World OF Warcraft service to your ISP, do you accept the charges?
Can't subscribe to Netflix without paying $19.99 a month extra, or having basic cable television.
HBO, already blocked on PS3 APPS?
Someone told me not having it so the Government didn't have control is a good thing ,but even if the Government wanted to shut down internet its very easy for them to do either way just blow the data centers up with a Cruise Missile and no internet for millions, or send an armed force for that matter.
^ Obviously an EMP, or Cyberworm can do the trick too and they got people working on the inside anyways.
Meh, Reddit got people riled up. Competition will keep balance for the most part in the U.S. people seem to ignore that. Example: In the past few years it's gone from Google going on about bringing their 1000Mbps lines to major cities then now various companies offering those lines. I don't live in some major city. There's 2 companies atm in my neighborhood that offer 1000Mbps lines. The kicker is At&t (wow) is the cheapest at ($80) beating the other company by $10. I don't really have a need for a line like that personally. I'm happy at 250Mbps up and down at $45 total, fees included. While a lot of rural area's may not see fiber for awhile it's definitely spreading. Heck my tablet and phone can't even take advantage of a 250 line. Usually topping out at around 100Mbps. S6 edge and some random tablet. Could be my router which is not the best but not junk either. Point being companies will have to be competitive to keep customers. If companies start doing stuff that people don't like they'll switch companies. If they all start doing it upsetting enough people I'm sure at that point something will be done. All the end of days stuff is way over the top.
Sounds like a response from one of the millions of fake accounts the news has been reporting that were submitted to the FCC because this decision had to be made public and accept open feedback before it was concluded.
Really? That's a first. Slightly hilarious you just called me a fake account or even a FCC bot? I can't actually believe it. lmao! How did the internet ever survive or innovate prior to 2015. Rolls eyes.
Added: The doomsdayers atm are way over the top. Competition does work where you have plenty of choices! And if not which is a big if people will be all over ISP's who mess up. Then I'll worry about it. As of right now. Life goes on.
I don't know if this is the case here but large companies do hire agencies to employ people to post in forums to help influence public opinion. Very easy to find those companies on the internet looking to hire people to post in forums.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
so does this only involve the U.S??? or does it include the whole world?? I havent got teh foggiest of anything significant about any of this but maybe thats cos i live in the EU but from my understanding this rule was only put in 2yrs ago and its just been scrapped (and i gather) going back to what it was previously so why all the hoo haa wam wam??
So, net neutrality revolves around one single definition - is the internet a "common carrier" or an "information provider"?
It used to be classified as an information provider. This essentially means it is a luxury service and you can easily live without it. Being a luxury service, providers were sort of allowed to do what they wanted, including tiered services, throttling / blocking etc.
However, the internet was founded on open principles - all traffic is equal - and most people adhered to that principle without needing too many regulations. The FCC also had some powers to curtail excessive behaviours.
What happened, though, is that from about 2005 - 2014, ISPs were steadily getting worse and worse. More and more blocking or throttling of services, usually without informing the public. The FCC stepped in where it could, but each case involved long drawn out court cases (which were very expensive to the tax payer) and most just resulted in the ISP altering their behaviour - no fines, nothing punitive, so no disincentive to do it again.
So, Obama implemented net neutrality - changing the internet from an information provider into a common carrier. This essentially recognised the importance of the internet in modern America, how it was no longer a luxury but virtually essential for modern life. By changing it to a common carrier, it brought it inline with other utilities, like gas and electric.
Being a common carrier means everyone has to be treated equally. No tiered pricing / services. You cannot pay more to get electricity before your neighbours, my water is not better because I pay more than you. Now, with net neutrality, you cannot pay more to get priority access to the internet. All electricity is treated equally. All water and gas is treated equally. Now, all internet traffic is treated equally.
This change empowered the FCC to enforce net neutrality and made it simpler to understand.
Now, we're taking a step backwards. The internet is once again being treated as a luxury in America, not as something essential for modern life. The FCC will once again have to return to complicated expensive cases to discourage ISPs from blocking content they don't like. ISPs can start offering tiered pricing, so if you want to stream 4k Netflix you'll have to make sure your ISP doesn't block it and that your package includes it. ISPs can use this change to screw over their competitors, but more importantly they can use their power to influence elections (e.g. by blocking / throttling prominent democratic sites).
The worst part about this whole thing is that Ajit Pai, the FCC guy pushing these changes, is flat out lying to the public, used to work for the ISPs so is already a corporate shill, and has ignored the public outcry. No doubt he will go back to working for ISPs once he's done with the FCC, enjoying some crazy big money from them. Essentially, ISPs have bribed their way to a law that lets them make more money at our expense.
Is it the end?
No. The FCC will still have some powers and if ISPs go too far, too fast then consumers will cry out, forcing change. Also, when Trump gets booted out in 2020, the next President will re-implement net neutrality anyway.
I read in you earlier post your from the UK and as such big ISP like BT must share their lines, it's the same here due to rules enforced by the CRTC which view ISP like utilities and force them to force their lines with smaller 3rd party ISP to ensure true competition and availability of choice for consumers.
The thing you must realize is that this is not so in the USA, the big ISP do not have to share their lines and defend their "territories" vigorously to the point many place have no choice in ISP as there is only one option. These changes will make this even more so as moving back to title 1 makes any laws forcing them to share their lines even less likely as if I am not mistaken this is something they COULD enforce if ISP were title 2 but not as title 1.
Last but certainly not least one of the FCC member said in his speech, during the vote to kill NN, that not only was he in favor of throttling it was a must going on in the future.
Another point is I believe once the court stuff is done if what the FCC wants stand and isn't overturned they will have some laws/rules that will stop the FCC from going back to change all this going forwards into the future not to mention they wish to take away any options from state or local gov to vote to change things for their state.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
They will make more money and the government will tax them more which they will pass along to consumers.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Considering that this only reverts to the rules as they were in early 2015, freaking out only makes sense if you thought the Internet was some dystopian wasteland in 2014 and has gotten massively better since then.
Either the sky will fall or else it won't. Most likely, returning to the light-touch regulatory regime that facilitated the rise of the Internet over the course of nearly 20 years preceding the FCC's arbitrary switch to Title II regulations in 2015 will similarly help facilitate future Internet improvements that we don't foresee today.
But it's also possible that ISPs will commonly roll out abusive and predatory business practices and block legitimate sites that they don't like or some such. If that happens, then the view that heavier regulation of the Internet is necessary will become prevalent all across the political spectrum rather than the Internet being just another domain in with the left wants more regulation and the right wants fewer. In that case, heavier regulations will come, hopefully in the form of Congress passing a bill properly authorizing heavier regulations.
And don't think that Congress is incapable of acting when there's overwhelming public support for an issue. It's hard to pass laws when half of the public is in favor and half against, and that's by design, but it's much easier to pass laws when there is broad popular support and few people opposed. For example, consider the CAN-SPAM act of 2003, which passed the Senate unanimously and the House by a vote of 392-5.
To be fair that's because the American voter is grossly uninformed about everything including net neutrality.
Half the time I hear people talk about net neutrality they are talking about "More government regulation" and "The FCC putting their greasy fingers on our internet."
They don't realize that "Net Neutrality" is a series of regulations enforced by the FCC, and the repeal of it means less government regulation, and less FCC involvement in our internet.
Of course many get this and it's the corporations they demonize, but many seem to feed into this ignorance with intentionally deceitful wording intended to use anti-FCC sentiment to get people to support NN.
I think the numbers would be very different if the American voter knew what they were talking about for once.
This is the reason we have a republic and not a democracy. It really is best we have people actually researched on these issues representing our interests rather than the common man voting on every single issue. Our founding fathers shunned direct democracy because of issues like this. It's the system that put Socrates to death after all.
Comments
Added: The doomsdayers atm are way over the top. Competition does work where you have plenty of choices! And if not which is a big if people will be all over ISP's who mess up. Then I'll worry about it. As of right now. Life goes on.
(and no, i dont think net neutrality was elected, but #45 was)
"I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"
As for people curious to what happens now that the vote has passed, I saw a link for this article going into more detail if anyone is curious:
https://techcrunch.com/2017/12/14/the-fcc-just-repealed-net-neutrality-what-happens-next/?ncid=mobilenavtrend
Its not completely doom and gloom yet but the train is on the tracks. Just keep pressuring your state unless you like paying more for the same or less quality like my quoted friend here.
https://youtu.be/ZfTyv_Ahd9g?t=1m24s
Pretty much this, just not only the wife's Netflix will have priority, but your entire area
While illegal activities do occur, they are the outlier rather than the norm, at least in my experience.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
My expectations of what this will mean for the US:
1) ISPs will go after the big content providers. Netflix, Amazon, Facebook, Google etc....whoever uses a lot of bandwidth will be targetted and forced to pay the ISPs money to ensure proper delivery to customers. Some of this cost will be passed on to consumers.
2) Bandwidth heavy fringe activities might suffer a bit. Lets face it, the majority of net users pretty much just watch netflix, read facebook and look things up on wikipedia. ISPs will thus focus on ensuring that this large market segment have the best deals available, but this will mean fringe activities are the most likely to suffer as they can't pay off the ISPs.
3) The political landscape might change. This is going to depend on just how much throttling / control the ISPs can get away with. ISPs are big business and controlled by small groups of individuals who are subject to shareholders. Its all about more money. So, when it comes to US elections, this very small group of people could easily decide to throttle / block sites that are opposed to their way of thinking (typically leftie sites). They can slowly but steadily shift the political spectrum to the right through controlling access to important content.
I'm not sure that ISPs are going to start offering different packages to consumers - "Signup to the streaming package to get the best netflix experience!" - I think that will very quickly lead to public outcry and the next President in 2020 (a democrat...) will immediately reinforce net neutrality. So, I think ISPs are more likely to target content providers instead and get big money out of them. Much easier to go to Netflix and say "give us $10m a month" than it is offering different packages to consumers.
There is also a risk that ISPs will try to double-dip - getting more money out of providers like Netflix and then also try to screw over consumers as well. If EA was an ISP, this would definitely happen! If anyone does go this route, expect massive outcry.
When regulation really took off in the United States in the 1930s, the effect in many industries was killing off a lot of small businesses and pushing consolidation of industries into fewer, larger businesses.
By your own logic, that was a decision written in favor of heavily lobbying large ISPs and is likely to kill off a lot of small ISPs that didn't have power to affect that decision.
I havent got teh foggiest of anything significant about any of this but maybe thats cos i live in the EU but from my understanding this rule was only put in 2yrs ago and its just been scrapped (and i gather) going back to what it was previously so why all the hoo haa wam wam??
Also the competition between ISPs works a lot better in most of the EU countries than in US so it's not that big a threat in EU.
However if large net service providers like Google will have to start paying US ISPs for access to their network, it might mean more advertisements, less money on developing internet services, and less free services, and that would affect whole world.
Even the "amazing" quizzical himself mentioned lack of competition. Competition can't equal better product if there is not competition. Just look at how difficult it is for Google, one of the richest companies in America, to get a foothold in the internet provider business. All I have to say is, use your heads because clearly you guys have not been.
Indeed, the FCC should work more like the CRTC in Canada which is far less political and works more like an extension of the courts that looks at facts, data and what is in the best interest of the public, they also actually listen to the public!
http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/technology/us-canada-net-neutrality-party-politics-fcc-crtc-fight-1.4447558
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
It used to be classified as an information provider. This essentially means it is a luxury service and you can easily live without it. Being a luxury service, providers were sort of allowed to do what they wanted, including tiered services, throttling / blocking etc.
However, the internet was founded on open principles - all traffic is equal - and most people adhered to that principle without needing too many regulations. The FCC also had some powers to curtail excessive behaviours.
What happened, though, is that from about 2005 - 2014, ISPs were steadily getting worse and worse. More and more blocking or throttling of services, usually without informing the public. The FCC stepped in where it could, but each case involved long drawn out court cases (which were very expensive to the tax payer) and most just resulted in the ISP altering their behaviour - no fines, nothing punitive, so no disincentive to do it again.
So, Obama implemented net neutrality - changing the internet from an information provider into a common carrier. This essentially recognised the importance of the internet in modern America, how it was no longer a luxury but virtually essential for modern life. By changing it to a common carrier, it brought it inline with other utilities, like gas and electric.
Being a common carrier means everyone has to be treated equally. No tiered pricing / services. You cannot pay more to get electricity before your neighbours, my water is not better because I pay more than you. Now, with net neutrality, you cannot pay more to get priority access to the internet. All electricity is treated equally. All water and gas is treated equally. Now, all internet traffic is treated equally.
This change empowered the FCC to enforce net neutrality and made it simpler to understand.
Now, we're taking a step backwards. The internet is once again being treated as a luxury in America, not as something essential for modern life. The FCC will once again have to return to complicated expensive cases to discourage ISPs from blocking content they don't like. ISPs can start offering tiered pricing, so if you want to stream 4k Netflix you'll have to make sure your ISP doesn't block it and that your package includes it. ISPs can use this change to screw over their competitors, but more importantly they can use their power to influence elections (e.g. by blocking / throttling prominent democratic sites).
The worst part about this whole thing is that Ajit Pai, the FCC guy pushing these changes, is flat out lying to the public, used to work for the ISPs so is already a corporate shill, and has ignored the public outcry. No doubt he will go back to working for ISPs once he's done with the FCC, enjoying some crazy big money from them. Essentially, ISPs have bribed their way to a law that lets them make more money at our expense.
Is it the end?
No. The FCC will still have some powers and if ISPs go too far, too fast then consumers will cry out, forcing change. Also, when Trump gets booted out in 2020, the next President will re-implement net neutrality anyway.
About the only chance of it occurring in the US is for someone to raise a lawsuit that gets heard on at the Supreme Court level and acted on by an activist court, which isn't what we have these days.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Can't subscribe to Netflix without paying $19.99 a month extra, or having basic cable television.
HBO, already blocked on PS3 APPS?
Someone told me not having it so the Government didn't have control is a good thing ,but even if the Government wanted to shut down internet its very easy for them to do either way just blow the data centers up with a Cruise Missile and no internet for millions, or send an armed force for that matter.
^ Obviously an EMP, or Cyberworm can do the trick too and they got people working on the inside anyways.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
The thing you must realize is that this is not so in the USA, the big ISP do not have to share their lines and defend their "territories" vigorously to the point many place have no choice in ISP as there is only one option. These changes will make this even more so as moving back to title 1 makes any laws forcing them to share their lines even less likely as if I am not mistaken this is something they COULD enforce if ISP were title 2 but not as title 1.
Last but certainly not least one of the FCC member said in his speech, during the vote to kill NN, that not only was he in favor of throttling it was a must going on in the future.
Another point is I believe once the court stuff is done if what the FCC wants stand and isn't overturned they will have some laws/rules that will stop the FCC from going back to change all this going forwards into the future not to mention they wish to take away any options from state or local gov to vote to change things for their state.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
The overwhelming majority of Americans already opposed the repealing of the rules.
Half the time I hear people talk about net neutrality they are talking about "More government regulation" and "The FCC putting their greasy fingers on our internet."
They don't realize that "Net Neutrality" is a series of regulations enforced by the FCC, and the repeal of it means less government regulation, and less FCC involvement in our internet.
Of course many get this and it's the corporations they demonize, but many seem to feed into this ignorance with intentionally deceitful wording intended to use anti-FCC sentiment to get people to support NN.
I think the numbers would be very different if the American voter knew what they were talking about for once.
This is the reason we have a republic and not a democracy. It really is best we have people actually researched on these issues representing our interests rather than the common man voting on every single issue. Our founding fathers shunned direct democracy because of issues like this. It's the system that put Socrates to death after all.