Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
CarlosSi wrote:If this is a valid point, I wish someone with power would realize this and take it to the Supreme Court and hopefully vote in favor of keeping net neutrality, because the internet is a medium of (free) speech, just like money is also a form of speech....
DfwRevolution wrote:CarlosSi wrote:If this is a valid point, I wish someone with power would realize this and take it to the Supreme Court and hopefully vote in favor of keeping net neutrality, because the internet is a medium of (free) speech, just like money is also a form of speech....
If the FCC votes to repeal Title II regulations, it means we will return to the regulatory framework that existed in 2015. How is that a problem?
The net neutrality debate doesn't have anything to do with free speech or an open internet. It's about who pays for the expensive infrastructure to stream 4K video content. The Forbes author makes a grave logical error when he concludes that repealing Title II will relegate small content providers to slow-lanes and big content providers to fast-lanes. There won't be any fast-lanes if ISPs can't recuperate their investment. Everyone will be in the slow-lane.
DfwRevolution wrote:CarlosSi wrote:If this is a valid point, I wish someone with power would realize this and take it to the Supreme Court and hopefully vote in favor of keeping net neutrality, because the internet is a medium of (free) speech, just like money is also a form of speech....
If the FCC votes to repeal Title II regulations, it means we will return to the regulatory framework that existed in 2015. How is that a problem?
The net neutrality debate doesn't have anything to do with free speech or an open internet. It's about who pays for the expensive infrastructure to stream 4K video content. The Forbes author makes a grave logical error when he concludes that repealing Title II will relegate small content providers to slow-lanes and big content providers to fast-lanes. There won't be any fast-lanes if ISPs can't recuperate their investment. Everyone will be in the slow-lane.
Jetsgo wrote:I don't recall the internet being any different 24 months ago when net neutrality passed. It was a solution in search of a problem. What's changed? Should a personal hobby weather monitor have equal access as a PS4 streaming 4K?
LAXintl wrote:How about Myth vs. Fact. Q&A
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Release ... 7961A1.pdf
Lots of meaningless hysteria that needs to be dispelled.
The internet thrived pre-2015 and will do so again.
DfwRevolution wrote:It's about who pays for the expensive infrastructure to stream 4K video content.
mercure1 wrote:To me what you just described sounds like a recipe for manipulation and abuse. What business is it of my ISP whether I'm downloading data that displays as a movie or data that comes from news sites?I am not sure why American friend here believe access and content cannot be differentiated, or oppose letting marketplace decide instead of forced government regulations. Is America after all not the land of capitalism and free market place?
In Europe we have nice packages that cover both data volumes and for types of content received from the internet companies. For example, if you are a high data user due to watching lots of Netflix or other video services, for example, you can purchase a video bundle since you consume so much specific data. Same goes for some websites whose access is free(often paid sponsorship for by content creators) and not counted towards usage totals while others are premium data charge.
To me this is the most honest and fair method is to pay for what consumes.
salttee wrote:mercure1 wrote:To me what you just described sounds like a recipe for manipulation and abuse. What business is it of my ISP whether I'm downloading data that displays as a movie or data that comes from news sites?I am not sure why American friend here believe access and content cannot be differentiated, or oppose letting marketplace decide instead of forced government regulations. Is America after all not the land of capitalism and free market place?
In Europe we have nice packages that cover both data volumes and for types of content received from the internet companies. For example, if you are a high data user due to watching lots of Netflix or other video services, for example, you can purchase a video bundle since you consume so much specific data. Same goes for some websites whose access is free(often paid sponsorship for by content creators) and not counted towards usage totals while others are premium data charge.
To me this is the most honest and fair method is to pay for what consumes.
And as has been pointed out, not everyone has the option of changing ISPs if they don't like the deal they are presented with.
bhill wrote:Don't we already do this? I know I have data limits on my phone and plans with more data cost more. This doesn't really have anything to do with net neutrality though.I think it is time for the "Internet"..in the US anyway, and the ISP's... to be treated like a utility. You use more...you pay more...not on the CONTENT of the packets, but the AMOUNT...just like trucks on the highways for heavier loads and the water and power one uses. Keep in mind that many folks use VoIP exclusively rather than POTs nowadays...The Internet and broadband are almost to the point of being required in one way or another to conduct day to day business now....
cledaybuck wrote:bhill wrote:Don't we already do this? I know I have data limits on my phone and plans with more data cost more. This doesn't really have anything to do with net neutrality though.I think it is time for the "Internet"..in the US anyway, and the ISP's... to be treated like a utility. You use more...you pay more...not on the CONTENT of the packets, but the AMOUNT...just like trucks on the highways for heavier loads and the water and power one uses. Keep in mind that many folks use VoIP exclusively rather than POTs nowadays...The Internet and broadband are almost to the point of being required in one way or another to conduct day to day business now....
einsteinboricua wrote:Imagine an ISP throttling back service to Netflix and then asking you to pay extra to view it. And then a few months later, a fee increase again...and then later on, being limited by total data content (10Gs of streaming in total). All while the same infrastructure remains in place.
And yet we're supposed to believe that the free market will sort it out?
CPH-R wrote:And gone.
Someone going through the trouble - and the money - to create 2 million fake comments on the proposal? Not a concern.
ISP having prior history of throttling and outright blocking content? Not a concern.
Trolling critics and referring to them as trolls, while dancing around with a known Pizzagate conspiracy theorist? Evidently a concern.
casinterest wrote:Title 2 of the communication act of 1934, is probably not the best way to define a common carrier. However until Congress does it's job and defines a more workable framework, it is obscene for the FCC to acquiesce to a request from the carriers to basically have free will in throttling traffic .
MaverickM11 wrote:CPH-R wrote:Well the ex Verizon guy wanted to push the Verizon agenda, and that's all this admin listens to, so that's the end of that.
janders wrote:Good riddance, and unlike 2015 they actually used order and open due process this time.
Now lets let the companies innovate, be creative, come up with different ways to deliver to us. Ultimately market gets to pick what sticks or not. Treating 21st century tech as 1930s infrastructure was looking backward not forward.MaverickM11 wrote:CPH-R wrote:Well the ex Verizon guy wanted to push the Verizon agenda, and that's all this admin listens to, so that's the end of that.
That ex Verizon guy was an Obama appointee.
bhill wrote:I think it is time for the "Internet"..in the US anyway, and the ISP's... to be treated like a utility. You use more...you pay more...not on the CONTENT of the packets, but the AMOUNT...just like trucks on the highways for heavier loads and the water and power one uses. Keep in mind that many folks use VoIP exclusively rather than POTs nowadays...The Internet and broadband are almost to the point of being required in one way or another to conduct day to day business now....
ltbewr wrote:Make sites for Democrats or 'liberal' or President Trump hating websites slower to get to or charge more ? Sorry, that is dead wrong and a violation of the 1st Amendment.
tommy1808 wrote:einsteinboricua wrote:Imagine an ISP throttling back service to Netflix and then asking you to pay extra to view it. And then a few months later, a fee increase again...and then later on, being limited by total data content (10Gs of streaming in total). All while the same infrastructure remains in place.
And yet we're supposed to believe that the free market will sort it out?
In Germany a couple of ISPs tried to get a "fair use policy" into their contracts a few years back. The market did sort that out rather quickly, the market demands flatrates.
best regards
Thomas
Aesma wrote:It depends per country.mercure1, what you describe "in Europe" is not that way at all in France. Here there is no limit on how much data you can consume, I should know I'm an extreme user.
einsteinboricua wrote:tommy1808 wrote:einsteinboricua wrote:Imagine an ISP throttling back service to Netflix and then asking you to pay extra to view it. And then a few months later, a fee increase again...and then later on, being limited by total data content (10Gs of streaming in total). All while the same infrastructure remains in place.
And yet we're supposed to believe that the free market will sort it out?
In Germany a couple of ISPs tried to get a "fair use policy" into their contracts a few years back. The market did sort that out rather quickly, the market demands flatrates.
best regards
Thomas
I don't know how it is in Europe, but in the US, ISPs are almost like utilities: you only get one per region. .
einsteinboricua wrote:Right now, the only company in my region is MetroCast. If I want an alternate company I'll have to either move from the region or get a service like AT&T U-verse (which will likely be on par or worse).
einsteinboricua wrote:Net neutrality sounds a lot like people who don't question why an airline still charges an arm and a leg to fly, making record profits, etc. That we had to trust that airlines would make the right call when their financial situation improved...and if we didn't like it, we could always take the train or drive.
casinterest wrote:There need to be regulations to enforce net-neutrality. To say that the free market will take care of it,is pure bullshit.
flyguy89 wrote:The Title 2 reclassification was always a heavy-handed/anti-competitive solution to something that wasn't really a problem
DfwRevolution wrote:einsteinboricua wrote:Right now, the only company in my region is MetroCast. If I want an alternate company I'll have to either move from the region or get a service like AT&T U-verse (which will likely be on par or worse).
So... MetroCast isn't the only company in your region. They compete with AT&T U-verse.einsteinboricua wrote:Net neutrality sounds a lot like people who don't question why an airline still charges an arm and a leg to fly, making record profits, etc. That we had to trust that airlines would make the right call when their financial situation improved...and if we didn't like it, we could always take the train or drive.
Commercial aviation doesn't make a great case for Title II advocates. Airline prices are way cheaper today than when the federal government regulated prices and networks.casinterest wrote:There need to be regulations to enforce net-neutrality. To say that the free market will take care of it,is pure bullshit.
It's remarkably telling that you think it's "bullshit" the free markets can't solve a problem that hadn't even manifest itself prior to the Title II reclassification in 2015.
DfwRevolution wrote:flyguy89 wrote:The Title 2 reclassification was always a heavy-handed/anti-competitive solution to something that wasn't really a problem
casinterest wrote:DfwRevolution wrote:flyguy89 wrote:The Title 2 reclassification was always a heavy-handed/anti-competitive solution to something that wasn't really a problem
But it was really a problem. Go read some history about a state called Texas that sued the Railroads for the leasing costs that they were being Exorbitantly charged for going within vs out of state.
It was a big problem at the times.
flyguy89 wrote:casinterest wrote:DfwRevolution wrote:
But it was really a problem. Go read some history about a state called Texas that sued the Railroads for the leasing costs that they were being Exorbitantly charged for going within vs out of state.
It was a big problem at the times.
I was specifically referencing reclassifying the internet as a Title 2 utility. I'm OK with net neutrality as a principle (although I don't think it should be illegal for a company to offer an internet product optimized or throttled based on usage), but the Obama-era FCC unfortunately threw the baby out with the bathwater by implementing net neutrality via unilaterally force-fitting the internet under regulations designed for the telegraph. This basically gave the FCC the power to enforce all manner of regulations for the internet above and beyond net neutrality, which the FCC merely just "promised" they wouldn't use...just a huge and confusing curve-ball of uncertainty where entrepreneurs and businesses need clarity and predictability. Of course Verizon, Comcast and the like were all for this approach once they realized how it would shield them from future competition...
casinterest wrote:DfwRevolution wrote:casinterest wrote:There need to be regulations to enforce net-neutrality. To say that the free market will take care of it,is pure bullshit.
It's remarkably telling that you think it's "bullshit" the free markets can't solve a problem that hadn't even manifest itself prior to the Title II reclassification in 2015.
Free markets can't always solve problems. Especially when interrtuptive Technology is involved. Sometimes they create them . Sometimes for decades. I present to you, Eli Whitney and the Cotton Gin. I'll let you decide what effect that immediately had in the "Free Markets". That I can say Bullshit to the Utopian idea of a "Free Market" fixing all things, indicates that I have an education. Not a lack of one.
DfwRevolution wrote:casinterest wrote:DfwRevolution wrote:
It's remarkably telling that you think it's "bullshit" the free markets can't solve a problem that hadn't even manifest itself prior to the Title II reclassification in 2015.
Free markets can't always solve problems. Especially when interrtuptive Technology is involved. Sometimes they create them . Sometimes for decades. I present to you, Eli Whitney and the Cotton Gin. I'll let you decide what effect that immediately had in the "Free Markets". That I can say Bullshit to the Utopian idea of a "Free Market" fixing all things, indicates that I have an education. Not a lack of one.
Strawman. I never claimed free markets "can always solve problems." Regulation is necessary and value-added when a market failure occurs.
However, your urge to regulate an industry before any market failure and before any chance at correction just shows your fetish to exercise the crude blunt force of the federal government
casinterest wrote:flyguy89 wrote:casinterest wrote:
But it was really a problem. Go read some history about a state called Texas that sued the Railroads for the leasing costs that they were being Exorbitantly charged for going within vs out of state.
It was a big problem at the times.
I was specifically referencing reclassifying the internet as a Title 2 utility. I'm OK with net neutrality as a principle (although I don't think it should be illegal for a company to offer an internet product optimized or throttled based on usage), but the Obama-era FCC unfortunately threw the baby out with the bathwater by implementing net neutrality via unilaterally force-fitting the internet under regulations designed for the telegraph. This basically gave the FCC the power to enforce all manner of regulations for the internet above and beyond net neutrality, which the FCC merely just "promised" they wouldn't use...just a huge and confusing curve-ball of uncertainty where entrepreneurs and businesses need clarity and predictability. Of course Verizon, Comcast and the like were all for this approach once they realized how it would shield them from future competition...
Title 2 though, handled the critical issue of the carriers being able to throttle. This is the critical issue, and is one that a lot of folks don't grasp .
In the internet is designed with fields of bits that can prioritize traffic, and these bits can be ignored, honored or changed, by any router.
flyguy89 wrote:casinterest wrote:flyguy89 wrote:I was specifically referencing reclassifying the internet as a Title 2 utility. I'm OK with net neutrality as a principle (although I don't think it should be illegal for a company to offer an internet product optimized or throttled based on usage), but the Obama-era FCC unfortunately threw the baby out with the bathwater by implementing net neutrality via unilaterally force-fitting the internet under regulations designed for the telegraph. This basically gave the FCC the power to enforce all manner of regulations for the internet above and beyond net neutrality, which the FCC merely just "promised" they wouldn't use...just a huge and confusing curve-ball of uncertainty where entrepreneurs and businesses need clarity and predictability. Of course Verizon, Comcast and the like were all for this approach once they realized how it would shield them from future competition...
Title 2 though, handled the critical issue of the carriers being able to throttle. This is the critical issue, and is one that a lot of folks don't grasp .
In the internet is designed with fields of bits that can prioritize traffic, and these bits can be ignored, honored or changed, by any router.
Sure, but unfortunately it brought with it a lot of regulatory baggage and uncertainty ill-suited for the internet which IMO were equally as much a threat to the internet as blocking/throttling.
casinterest wrote:flyguy89 wrote:casinterest wrote:
Title 2 though, handled the critical issue of the carriers being able to throttle. This is the critical issue, and is one that a lot of folks don't grasp .
In the internet is designed with fields of bits that can prioritize traffic, and these bits can be ignored, honored or changed, by any router.
Sure, but unfortunately it brought with it a lot of regulatory baggage and uncertainty ill-suited for the internet which IMO were equally as much a threat to the internet as blocking/throttling.
Regulations needed to be put in place, and Title 2 was applied since the Morons that run the GOP side of the house have an aversion to regulations due to their educational attainment being overriden by cash from their donors. One could use the word corruption.
As long as the lobbyists are pursuing less regulations, and the GOP is willing to accept some more money, then we will have less regulations. Remember the FCC is not applying logic to the rollbacks and creating new regulations that make sense. They are just rolling them back. This is expressly evident as this was a party line vote.
PARIS (Reuters) - France will continue to defend “net neutrality” irrespective of what other countries may do, Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said on Friday, after a United States commission voted to ditch rules on the issue.
.
.
.
“France will continue to defend net neutrality despite whatever decisions are taken by other countries,” Le Drian said in a speech on Friday on France’s overseas digital strategy.
janders wrote:Good riddance, and unlike 2015 they actually used order and open due process this time.
Now lets let the companies innovate, be creative, come up with different ways to deliver to us. Ultimately market gets to pick what sticks or not.
Treating 21st century tech as 1930s infrastructure was looking backward not forward.
c933103 wrote:janders wrote:Good riddance, and unlike 2015 they actually used order and open due process this time.
Now lets let the companies innovate, be creative, come up with different ways to deliver to us. Ultimately market gets to pick what sticks or not.
Was there any choice given to regular American family users when certain ISP start throttling Netflix and set a monthly data usage cap? Many American families only have a single ISP connected to them