FCC plan would give Internet providers power to choose the sites customers see and use

Oh, and just incase no one has seen this, for all the states rights people out there.

arstechnica.com...

At the same time NN is planned to be repealed, they're passing another law (or rather an FCC regulation) that prohibits states from making their own Net Neutrality laws.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: interupt42

I don't know. I think there will be a big battle over encryption in the next few years but I don't know when.

Personally, I take the view that encryption is a lockbox, speech, and a weapon so should be protected under the 1st, 2nd, and 4th. The problem I see, is that because corporations don't have constitutional protections the government can circumvent this issue by legislating the ability to break corporate encryption and circumvent all of our personal protections.

Agreed on all counts.

Unfortunately we the little people seldom win in the long run. Look at what is happening to net neutrality.
Something that was good for the people and helped create the Internet is now being taken away. It didn't happen over night and its been a fight for many years but now the battle is likely to be lost.

The lobbyist and gov't always win in the system they control and created.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: dug88
Being able to read and write is something you probably take for granted but if this was 400 years ago you would likely not be able to because the church decided who got to read and write. Try and picture how much freedom you would have if it were up to some company who got access to reading and writing. Being able to access the internet today is the equivalent of being able to read and write 400 years ago.

No, it's not something that I take for granted.

We were able to access the internet before Net Neutrality legislation, and we'll have access after. If not, we have libraries, and magazines, and books, and television, and myriad other ways to learn and communicate. Hyperbole and implications to slippery-slope arguments don't work very well with me.

Just because I choose not to scream that the sky is falling doesn't mean that I lack appreciation for the internet. But at the same time, I don't think that it's the government's place to tell private industry what to do with their product.

By giving ISP's sole control over all peoples communications you make them the same as guards in a prison.

So, what you're saying is that, by allowing a private company to conduct business as they deem appropriate in their quest to make their business grow and profit, that's akin to making them guards in a prison?

That could not be more ridiculous--you only make that argument because you're citing the worst-case scenario that didn't exist prior to Net Neutrality, and will not destroy the internet without it. If I'm wrong, we can revisit the issue in the future after such actions by ISProviders have been taken, but I'm not going to subscribe to your the-end-is-nigh mentality just yet.

And I don't think that I'll have to in the future.

And BTW, I don't have cable, I have a Roku. Are you going to complain that the government doesn't make Netflix and Hulu and the like all carry the same stuff and tell them that they can't remove programming from their line-up?

The government's job is not to force private industry to "be fair" to everyone, no matter how many slippery-slope arguments you want to throw out there.

Yes, I understand that there's exists potential for ISP companies to abuse their power over the consumer, but with the federal government, there exists the potential to abuse its power over ISP providers AND their customers. I have been following this issue for a long while now--your worst-case scenarios aren't going to persuade me, because it's nothing that I haven't heard and considered myriad times before.

Best regards--we can just agree to disagree.

The internet is NOT a private product. The internet was created using government money, it's infrastructure was built by government contractors paid for with government funds. The internet is not some company's private property to sell as they choose.

My grandfather was a lineman in the 60's and 70's being paid by the government to create the infrastructure these companies use to sell you the internet you buy today. It is not owned by these companies. The infrastructure they use to provide access to the internet was not paid for by these companies.

The internet is a public utility created using public tax money. There is zero argument for corporations being in control of that. Period.

It's just as bad as Nestle privatizing water or the privatization of bridges and roadways. These are for the betterment of society in general. Everyone helped pay for them everyone should be anle to access them.

It's a hell of a world.

On the right we've got weaponized autism, on the left -- weaponized victimhood.

In the middle, the uniformed argue back and forth over who's worse: the government or the corporations.

I can count on one hand the total number of people I've met in real life who recognize that both sides are literally the same people.

Derp.

a reply to: 0zzymand0s

They are not both the same. Without Net Neutrality, assuming we can even still access ATS, I will not be able to share a link to a news story with you, because our ISP's will have different rules about what content we can each access.

a reply to: Aazadan


The government is run by corporate appointees. They are the same.

I agree about net neutrality. Access to ATS is going to be the first thing to go.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Ksihkehe

While you were correct I misread and misspoke,is that all you have to add to the story?

This is the control of information, I hope you're not as apathetic as your comment seemed.

This will effect global markets and information.

This is not the "control of information" any more than a store deciding not to carry books by a certain publisher is.

The internet is infrastructure of information the way roads are infrastructure for transportation.

Imagine next time you go grocery shopping all roads have been blocked between your home and grocery stores with the exception two stores owned by the same company that owns the roads. Now imagine that for all news, information and shopping on the internet.

ATS will be directly hurt by this. They will be told as a company to pay the internet service providers or have their access limited, slowed or blocked.

originally posted by: Aazadan
Oh, and just incase no one has seen this, for all the states rights people out there.

arstechnica.com...

At the same time NN is planned to be repealed, they're passing another law (or rather an FCC regulation) that prohibits states from making their own Net Neutrality laws.

Trump has shepherded in the age of Plutocracy.

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Ksihkehe

While you were correct I misread and misspoke,is that all you have to add to the story?

This is the control of information, I hope you're not as apathetic as your comment seemed.

This will effect global markets and information.

This is not the "control of information" any more than a store deciding not to carry books by a certain publisher is.

The internet is infrastructure of information the way roads are infrastructure for transportation.

Imagine next time you go grocery shopping all roads have been blocked between your home and grocery stores with the exception two stores owned by the same company that owns the roads. Now imagine that for all news, information and shopping on the internet.

ATS will be directly hurt by this. They will be told as a company to pay the internet service providers or have their access limited, slowed or blocked.

That's what it's like with roads in Japan.

www.japantimes.co.jp...

Japan's road system was completely privatized in 2005. Now the majority of their roads are toll roads where exactly what you describe happens.

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: intrptr

The "inter" in internet referred to connection of computer networks.

Interweb, interwoven, internet: networking on computers, for people.

Without people's input it would be mindless.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: UKTruth
You'll benefit when competition ramps up - to facilitate that the govt should focus not on net neutrality but on making sure that physical network owners open up their access so that others can compete...

So you're saying that the government should step in, overturn all the monopoly agreements that were put in place in exchange for the building of the networks, and that the owners of the fiber optic lines should be forced to let competing business on to them when those businesses did nothing to build it?

Yep - commonplace here.
The network 'owner' can make wholesale money and thus have a competitive advantage, but you'd be surprised how often they are undercut (i.e. nearly always).
In my area I have a choice of about 15 suppliers... most using the same network. The network 'owner' is the most expensive usually.

It's the same with mobile networks too.

a reply to: soberbacchus

HIS answer would be to "Build yer own roads!"

originally posted by: UKTruth
Yep - commonplace here.
The network 'owner' can make wholesale money and thus have a competitive advantage, but you'd be surprised how often they are undercut (i.e. nearly always).
In my area I have a choice of about 15 suppliers... most using the same network. The network 'owner' is the most expensive usually.

The US doesn't have the population density for what you're suggesting. It costs approximately $5000 per household to run fiber in the US. It's typically considered to be a 30 to 50 year investment to pay off the infrastructure cost. It's simply not viable to duplicate that infrastructure over and over with a bunch of competitors, all that does is raise the cost per household since fewer people would be on any given network.

What you're actually describing having in the UK though is the network owner and the service providers as being different entities. One owns the wires, one manages data over those wires. In the US they're the same entity, unless we were to break them up (which these companies strongly lobby against) the way we broke up the phone companies... that model simply cannot work.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: dug88
Being able to read and write is something you probably take for granted but if this was 400 years ago you would likely not be able to because the church decided who got to read and write. Try and picture how much freedom you would have if it were up to some company who got access to reading and writing. Being able to access the internet today is the equivalent of being able to read and write 400 years ago.

No, it's not something that I take for granted.

We were able to access the internet before Net Neutrality legislation, and we'll have access after. If not, we have libraries, and magazines, and books, and television, and myriad other ways to learn and communicate. Hyperbole and implications to slippery-slope arguments don't work very well with me.

Just because I choose not to scream that the sky is falling doesn't mean that I lack appreciation for the internet. But at the same time, I don't think that it's the government's place to tell private industry what to do with their product.

By giving ISP's sole control over all peoples communications you make them the same as guards in a prison.

So, what you're saying is that, by allowing a private company to conduct business as they deem appropriate in their quest to make their business grow and profit, that's akin to making them guards in a prison?

That could not be more ridiculous--you only make that argument because you're citing the worst-case scenario that didn't exist prior to Net Neutrality, and will not destroy the internet without it. If I'm wrong, we can revisit the issue in the future after such actions by ISProviders have been taken, but I'm not going to subscribe to your the-end-is-nigh mentality just yet.

And I don't think that I'll have to in the future.

And BTW, I don't have cable, I have a Roku. Are you going to complain that the government doesn't make Netflix and Hulu and the like all carry the same stuff and tell them that they can't remove programming from their line-up?

The government's job is not to force private industry to "be fair" to everyone, no matter how many slippery-slope arguments you want to throw out there.

Yes, I understand that there's exists potential for ISP companies to abuse their power over the consumer, but with the federal government, there exists the potential to abuse its power over ISP providers AND their customers. I have been following this issue for a long while now--your worst-case scenarios aren't going to persuade me, because it's nothing that I haven't heard and considered myriad times before.

Best regards--we can just agree to disagree.

Yeah uh, there used to be more ISPs to choose from than there are now, as net neutrality guidelines were generally agreed upon up until the FCC had to issue more formal guidelines in 2005 in response to exactly the same # we're going to see immediately after net neutrality regulations go away. The FCC had to issue more stringent regulations because they kept pushing the BS bar as far as it could stretch, while raking in massive profits.

You understand that the taxpayers paid $400 billion to telecoms to expand broadband and... we still pay for broadband plus have worse results than other countries, right?

Prices are only going up, and speeds aren't getting particularly faster in my neck of the woods... and we never got what we paid for with those billions.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: UKTruth
Yep - commonplace here.
The network 'owner' can make wholesale money and thus have a competitive advantage, but you'd be surprised how often they are undercut (i.e. nearly always).
In my area I have a choice of about 15 suppliers... most using the same network. The network 'owner' is the most expensive usually.

The US doesn't have the population density for what you're suggesting. It costs approximately $5000 per household to run fiber in the US. It's typically considered to be a 30 to 50 year investment to pay off the infrastructure cost. It's simply not viable to duplicate that infrastructure over and over with a bunch of competitors, all that does is raise the cost per household since fewer people would be on any given network.

What you're actually describing having in the UK though is the network owner and the service providers as being different entities. One owns the wires, one manages data over those wires. In the US they're the same entity, unless we were to break them up (which these companies strongly lobby against) the way we broke up the phone companies... that model simply cannot work.

It's not a case of laying new infrastructure.
Your second paragraph is correct and yes, break up the network owners business. That is exactly what is happening in the UK.. with moves to completely separate BT's consumer business from it's infrastructure business - which will happen soon (already partly done) with the copper wires and will eventually happen with fibre too.

originally posted by: UKTruth
Your second paragraph is correct and yes, break up the network owners business. That is exactly what is happening in the UK.. with moves to completely separate BT's consumer business from it's infrastructure business - which will happen soon (already partly done) with the copper wires and will eventually happen with fibre too.

We cannot do that in the US. There is no political will to break them up. In fact, this current NN repeal plan includes provisions that specifically call for not breaking these companies up.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Many of us can't take our business elsewhere. I live in a city of 200,000~ and we have one cable internet provider and very crappy dsl.

You'll benefit when competition ramps up - to facilitate that the govt should focus not on net neutrality but on making sure that physical network owners open up their access so that others can compete...

You live in the UK correct? The population density there is very different. So you all are able to have competition with ISP’s.

Here in the states (third largest country) each area has one solid ISP, sure there are crappy dsl options, but truly one choice.

Net neutrality is only a few years old. But this has always been the case for ISP’s.

ISP's are the lowest rated industry in the US and have been along side of cable providers because they've always been local monopolies.

Most if the people arguing against net neutrality really don't understand it. It was set up because companies like Netflix were being extorted out of money with the threat they'd be throttled to customers because people were getting sick of cable companies.

This isn't a partisan issue people, let's stop acting like it.

This is consumers vs the worst rated corporations.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Population density is higher in the UK overall, sure, but actually, something like 50% of Americans live in more densely populated areas than the average Uk person. Still, that is not the issue as I am not talking about creating new physical networks - that doesn't happen here much either (except for some vendor specific additions to existing infrastructure).

Breaking up infrastructure and consumer offering relationships seems to be a better course of action and will promote competition. Like I said - I have nearly 15 options for broadband internet, all but one of which comes over the same network. There is constant dealing to lower prices for consumers and if I ring my current provider I can usually get a price match (at least) if i threaten to switch.

The fact you seem to need net neutrality speaks volumes about the corporate power the ISPs hold in the US. Take their power away instead of trying to regulate.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: UKTruth
Your second paragraph is correct and yes, break up the network owners business. That is exactly what is happening in the UK.. with moves to completely separate BT's consumer business from it's infrastructure business - which will happen soon (already partly done) with the copper wires and will eventually happen with fibre too.

We cannot do that in the US. There is no political will to break them up. In fact, this current NN repeal plan includes provisions that specifically call for not breaking these companies up.

You can do it, your politicians just don't want to... I wonder why...

originally posted by: UKTruth
You can do it, your politicians just don't want to... I wonder why...

Our politicians have no say on this matter. The internet falls under the FCC which is composed of 5 members, two people are nominated from each party in congress, and one from the President. This system basically gives FCC control by a 3-2 majority to whatever party occupies the Presidency. We do not vote on who these people are, and they're legally accountable to no one. Usually they're picked as former lobbyists, because regulatory capture is a big issue in the US.

Leaving Net Neutrality in place is better than the alternative. There are ideas better than NN out there, but those ideas aren't what we're proposing right now, or even considering.

In fact, even if we were, it's the head of the parties in Congress that choose who gets appointed which means the FCC isn't even accountable to the voters. At best it's accountable to two voting districts across the country, such as McConnell's district in Kentucky. Those are the only people who can vote to remove him in response to him doing a bad job, such as messing up his FCC picks.