Jump to content
Chapala.com Webboard

Net Neutrality abolished in the states


michael2595

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, mudgirl said:

‘Today’s new rule would enable ISPs to charge consumers more to access sites like Facebook and Twitter and give them the leverage to degrade high quality of video streaming until and unless somebody pays them more money. Even worse, today’s vote would enable ISPs to favor certain viewpoints over others.’

From a press release from New York's Attorney General's office. The main danger here are internet providers censoring what we can and cannot access online.

No, the main danger is people like you crying ":wolf" when there is not one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 66
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Back in the 90s when the Internet was young and free, we talked about regulating the Internet like a utility. It was a good idea then and it's a good idea now. Yes information is a right, and shouldn't be controlled by a few corporations. Interesting to note that companies like Amazon, Google, Netflix, Facebook and Wikipedia all favor net neutrality. The companies against are the giant providers such as AT&T, Comcast, Verizon... who stand to make big bucks. When I lived NOB, they were the last providers I ever wanted to use. Their service was marginal at best and smaller providers or local governments were far superior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From today's WSJ:

The Internet Is Free Again

Killing Obama-era rules will remove the FCC as political gatekeeper

By 
The Editorial Board
Dec. 14, 2017 7:23 p.m. ET
 

Disney’s deal announced Thursday to buy some premium 21st Century Fox properties for $52.4 billion underscores how technology is remaking the media landscape. This discomfits some, but the Federal Communications Commission is right to let markets steer competition and innovation.

The FCC on Thursday voted 3-2 to approve chairman Ajit Pai’s plan to repeal “net neutrality” rules backed by the Obama Administration that reclassified internet-service providers as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. Title II prohibits “any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services.”

By effectively deeming the internet a utility, former chairman Tom Wheeler turned the FCC into a political gatekeeper. The rules prohibited broadband providers from blocking, throttling and favoring content, which Mr. Wheeler ostensibly intended to help large content providers like Google and Netflix gain leverage against cable companies. 

But as always in politics, treatment under the rules would depend on ideology and partisanship. Even as liberals howl that the Justice Department’s lawsuit to block AT&T’s merger with Time Warner is motivated by President Trump’s animus to CNN, they want FCC control over the internet. The left’s outcry at Mr. Pai “killing” internet freedom has been so overwrought that the FCC meeting room had to be cleared Thursday for a security threat.

 

Bans on throttling content may poll well, but the regulations have created uncertainty about what the FCC would or wouldn’t allow. This has throttled investment. Price discrimination and paid prioritization are used by many businesses. Netflix charges higher prices to subscribers who stream content on multiple devices. Has this made the internet less free?

Mr. Pai’s rules would require that broadband providers disclose discriminatory practices. Thus cable companies would have to be transparent if they throttle content when users reach a data cap or if they speed up live sports programming. Consumers can choose broadband providers and plans accordingly. The Federal Trade Commission will have authority to police predatory and monopolistic practices, as it had prior to Mr. Wheeler’s power grab. 

***

Mr. Pai’s net-neutrality rollback will also support growth in content. Both content producers and consumers will benefit from increased investment in faster wireless and fiber technology. Apple is pouring $1 billion into original content to compete with Amazon, Netflix and YouTube. 

Disney is buying the 21st Century Fox assets to compete with Netflix and other streaming services, build leverage with cable companies and establish a global footprint. Netflix has more than 47 million international subscribers and streams in nearly every country. Fox (which shares the Murdoch family’s ownership with our parent company, News Corp.) will keep its news and main sports channels, which can offer “live” content to consumers. The antitrust concerns should be negligible.

Consumers will also benefit from the slow breakdown of the cable monopoly as they customize “bundles” like Hulu or a Disney stream that may cost less. Americans will also enjoy new distribution options, which could have been barred by the net-neutrality rules.

This week T-Mobile announced its acquisition of Layer3 TV, a Denver startup that streams high-definition channels online and will compete with AT&T’s DirecTV Now. Verizon Wireless last month said it will start delivering high-speed broadband to homes over its wireless network late next year. Google and AT&T are experimenting with similar services that will be cheaper than digging dirt to lay cable. This could be a boon for rural America. 

 

By the way, Google has vigorously promoted net neutrality in theory but less in practice. While Google says it remains “committed to the net neutrality policies,” the search engine uses opaque algorithms to prioritize and discriminate against content, sometimes in ways that undercut competitors. Net neutrality for thee, but not me. Google ought to be transparent about its practices.

Technology and markets change faster than the speed of regulation, which Ajit Pai’s FCC has recognized by taking a neutral position and restoring the promise of internet freedom. 

Appeared in the December 15, 2017, print edition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciate you all have kept this very civil and both points of view have been aired without personal attacks.  This action could affect Mexico in some manner hence is relevant to this board.  Try and avoid partisan politics and focus on the question of whether or not competition will be stimulated or inhibited.  My compliments to all of you for sticking to the subject and avoiding personalities!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Give us some substance, Angus.  

wendys-wheres-the-beef.jpg

 

I simply believe you don't assume there's a problem until there is one.  For example, I do think governments need to set minimum standards for airline cabins.  The airline industry has squeezed the seating until it is excruciating for anyone of normal size.  I would favor re-regulation of airlines only to that extent, setting uniform standards that protect passengers from this situation.  Yes, fares would likely increase some but I think most would find it worthwhile.  As it stands now, there are no alternatives to sardine can seating other than mega-expensive first or business class. 

We don't need to return to the days of over-regulation of routes and fares but IMO something needs to be done about seating.  To me that is a really good example of imposing regulations when the actual need for same shows up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If airlines charged passengers by the pound, like freight, you would see plenty of comfortable seats sprinkled throughout the plane. But then why should 225# me have to pay more than a 125# other person? We're both "humans" and just because it costs more to haul me somebody should prohibit me from having to pay extra. It's just fair, (or at least my definition of fair).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Mainecoons said:

So exactly where/who in the U.S. has anyone done what yet more regulations are supposed to prevent?

As has been shown here, this 'abuse' was going on and was on the rise..... more than any of us here on this Board were/are aware of. Thus the need in some folks minds for regulations to prevent such 'abuse' and that is what was done in 2015. I suspect that yesterday's reversal by the FCC will quickly be in the courts... and maybe for some years.  IMO, we won't see any 'abuse' in the short term but if any of us think that it won't come to pass without Neutrality.... well there are a 'couple of bridges for sale' that come to mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, MtnMama said:

When I lived NOB, they were the last providers I ever wanted to use. Their service was marginal at best and smaller providers or local governments were far superior.

THAT is exactly the point: local and State governments best serve their citizens, NOT the Federal Government and their MASSKIVE regulations. Power BACK to the People to regulate as they deem necessary ! Often, what those who live in the Big cities on both coasts seek is NOT what is best for the rest of the USA. I'm so pleased that this new administration NOB has realized that and is seeking to return local control and power to the people of each State.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And when your porn is blocked? The dark web too?

The so called regulations that are railed against here are populist's talking points. The rule was than nobody can discriminate. Now they can, they will, and it will limit information greatly. Censorship of the Web will be OK. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, AngusMactavish said:

Are metaphors vaporware?  

I wonder if anyone else here sees the irony in your big brother quote being applied in SUPPORT of more big brother government regulation?

2 hours ago, RickS said:

As has been shown here, this 'abuse' was going on and was on the rise...

Not really.  Let's see some real pre 2015 proof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hud said:

THAT is exactly the point: local and State governments best serve their citizens, NOT the Federal Government and their MASSKIVE regulations. Power BACK to the People to regulate as they deem necessary ! Often, what those who live in the Big cities on both coasts seek is NOT what is best for the rest of the USA. I'm so pleased that this new administration NOB has realized that and is seeking to return local control and power to the people of each State.

This is the second definitely political post Hud has made in this thread.  Where are you, mod?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AngusMactavish said:

And when your porn is blocked? The dark web too?

The so called regulations that are railed against here are populist's talking points. The rule was than nobody can discriminate. Now they can, they will, and it will limit information greatly. Censorship of the Web will be OK. 

Come back when they do.  Only thing I've read about blocking content had to do with some governments proposing to do so.  For example, the Chinese government has been blocking content they don't like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Mainecoons said:

Come back when they do.  Only thing I've read about blocking content had to do with some governments proposing to do so.  For example, the Chinese government has been blocking content they don't like.

WTF,  is there freedom in China? We live in and lived in free societies. The concept of equality was extended to the internet, but not anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Mainecoons said:

No problem Angus, but your Big Brother quote is about big government.  Got your boogie men confused there.  :D

Again sir. If no net neutrality is "Freedom", then Orwell's quote is the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't wait to hear the wailing when people start having to pay for what they used to get for free.  They so easily forget that NOTHING is free: for example, the "free" social networking sites where your "payment" is your personal information that is sold to advertisers and has made buckets of money for those who run the show.

Just "follow the money" to see who profits from this change.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And why weren't they paying for it just two short years ago?  That's when there was a "change."  

As you say, nothing is free.  We get to use the internet in exchange for seeing adverts and yes, having some information relating to our usage sold.  If you read the terms of service of any site that is spelled out.

At some point the providers may chose a different business model.  What is important to protect the consumer is the avoidance of anti-competitive monopoly situations.  

There's an old saying that fits here:  "Don't have your pain in advance." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Mainecoons said:

And why weren't they paying for it just two short years ago?  That's when there was a "change."  

As you say, nothing is free.  We get to use the internet in exchange for seeing adverts and yes, having some information relating to our usage sold.  If you read the terms of service of any site that is spelled out.

At some point the providers may chose a different business model.  What is important to protect the consumer is the avoidance of anti-competitive monopoly situations.  

There's an old saying that fits here:  "Don't have your pain in advance." 

I, for one, am not having advance pain.  Anyone who doesn't read the terms of service on everything is flying blind.  I only hope that my ad-blocking programs continue to work.B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...