It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

FCC votes to repeal net neutrality rules, a milestone for Republican deregulation push

page: 1
53
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+20 more 
posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Federal regulators voted on Thursday to repeal Obama-era net neutrality rules for internet traffic — a major victory for telecommunications companies and another milestone for the Republican deregulation push under President Trump. The 3-2 party-line vote by the Federal Communications Commission tears down the controversial utility-like oversight of internet service providers that was put in place by Democrats in 2015 to try to ensure the uninhibited flow of data online.


LA Times

I expressed my opinion to my representative and the FCC that net neutrality should not be struck down, although it looks like the FCC didn't care about my opinion (due to their unwillingness to investigate millions of fraudulent comments supporting striking down net neutrality) and it also looks like my representative cares about my opinion just because she is a Democrat - if I still lived in Idaho (a Republican state), I bet I would write my representative and they would rebuke me with a form letter, that is what happened last time.

The bottom line is that the vote to strike down net neutrality today will likely cause vastly increased prices for consumers of the internet (nearly everyone). For example, data caps will come in force and might not be high enough to account for a family's internet usage. I am a gamer and a Netflix watcher. I use an Xbox One, and games can be 50 gigs or more each, plus DLC. Netflix uses around 3 GB per hour of data on streaming.

A 300 GB data cap would allow for 100 hours of television streaming per month, or about 25 hours a week (3.3 hours a day, if you go 300 / 30 / 3) - but, that is without online gaming data, or data used to watch videos on Facebook or YouTube, or data used to download games, or data used to surf the web.

Now think about this - that is ONE USER. What about a family of 3? Well, sorry, you only get about an hour of streaming TV per day each.

When 4K televisions with 4K Netflix streaming arrive, as well as services that offer streaming games off of the cloud, it is a sure bet that people using these services will have to pay extra to their ISPs, AS WELL AS EXTRA TO NETFLIX AND OTHER SERVICE PROVIDERS, WHO ARE PAYING AN ADDITIONAL FEE TO THE ISPs.

Worse than that, some people might be priced out of being able to use the new technology, and even worse than that, some companies might be priced out of being able to present the population with innovative technology. All of this to benefit shareholders of ISP stock.

I also use the internet to tutor in mathematics via video chat to make money, and this will likely result in me paying more to my ISP. How so? Well, it will affect my data cap and in addition to this, the website I use might have to pay a "fee" to multiple ISPs in order to ensure that their video chat services are not throttled. This could result in the website taking a higher cut of my hourly rate. Even worse, the website I use might not be able to afford the cost of using a video chat service once ISPs can charge extra for it. This would essentially result in me losing my job.

How will this vote affect you? What are your thoughts?
edit on 14pmThu, 14 Dec 2017 12:26:34 -0600kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



+4 more 
posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 12:33 PM
link   
Well, freedom has been nice and all while it lasted...
But we've just entered the age where companies get to decide what you can and can't see. Have a favorite website? Not anymore, your ISP gets paid more by its competitors to block it from you. Government doesn't want you getting your news from non-approved sources? No more news for you, now it's blocked. Like watching videos on your favorite streaming site? Nope. Sure, the website might not be blocked, but it'll take you 30 minutes to load 2 minutes of that video in 360p resolution since it's not part of your paid package.

Enjoy ATS while you can.


+2 more 
posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

A move this big will be sent to congress and I'll vote against any one in congress who doesn't support net neutrality.

No need to freak out yet let's just hope congress. Does their job and protects the consumer....

Nevermind we're screwed


+20 more 
posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 12:34 PM
link   
Poor "U"S americans, and poor germans two or three years later(we have to copy everything the "U"S does).
But what do you have all the guns for, if not to protect your freedom?
Just for killing each other?
When do you start to protect your freedom?


+8 more 
posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 12:36 PM
link   
The GOP mindset strikes again - the vote was on party lines - the only people that count to the GOP are the already obscenely wealthy. The rest of everybody, who are obviously all deadbeats or they would be rich, too, can go F themselves.




posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 12:36 PM
link   
Thanks, Obama.



posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 12:39 PM
link   
i think it still has to go through congress, so... maybe we still have some hope


the repubs have a bad rep alrdy, if they dont stop it... it will be the end of them.. and they know it



posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 12:40 PM
link   
The Republicans are having a field day pushing things thru that they've been trying to get thru for years. Trump is a GOP wet dream since he is/was so popular.



posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Open_Minded Skeptic


...the only people that count to the GOP are the already obscenely wealthy.


You know what the worst part is...

These sellout politicians are willing to do it for mere scraps, discarded to them by their overlords.
They’re not even making bank to do so...


I know if I was in power and doing the bidding of the Elite I’d be taking them for much more.


Moral of the story is to know your worth.
Then again, accepting stingey morsels, maybe they do.



posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 12:41 PM
link   
The key word is "regulating" as in you lose your internet freedoms and choices you have now. I don't see your increased cost when it will basically do the exact opposite by lowering cost due to competition. Obama's internet control plan would have but the internet in the hands of a few companies and allow them to tell you what you will see/use on the internet....not good.

Repeat after me, less regulations is good, after a base set of regulations why would we need more in anything since all that further regulations do is add levels of bureaucracy that slow things down to a stop. This is why Trump is saying for every new regulation 5 or more will be repealed.



posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 12:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: JDmOKI
a reply to: darkbake

No need to freak out yet let's just hope congress. Does their job and protects the consumer....

Nevermind we're screwed


I have lived in both a conservative state (Idaho) and a liberal state (Washington) and have written representatives in both. When I have, someone on staff seems to glaze over my e-mail just enough to get a grasp of its subject matter, and then they send me a form letter with the opinion of the representative. Since I lean Democrat, when I lived in Idaho, I got a form letter rebuking my opinion, and when I wrote my representative in Washington, I got a form letter agreeing with my opinion.

To me, it seems like my opinion doesn't affect the representative's views in the slightest, but I guess it would take a large amount of Republicans writing to Republican congressmen in order to change anything regarding net neutrality. Unless Democrats win big in 2018 or something.
edit on 14pmThu, 14 Dec 2017 12:44:25 -0600kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 12:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Jiggly

I agree as an independent voter who voted for Obama twice net neutrality was one of the few things I actually supported fully.

Republicans are gonna piss off a whole Lotta people if they allow this to stand



posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: JDmOKI

Since the issue negatively impacts nearly everyone in the U.S., once policies are enacted by the ISPs, it might result in more people voting Democrat in 2018. Although companies might make changes slowly, over time, or in stealthy ways, in order to keep this from happening.
edit on 14pmThu, 14 Dec 2017 12:46:38 -0600kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)


+8 more 
posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

How exactly does this breed more competition? The cost to lay down new infrastructure is astronomical. Meanwhile, the major corporations that already exist are still mooching off of tax payer funded infrastructure.

If these companies want to create their own infrastructure then I say let them have free reign over what they want to do. But as long as they continue to rely on everything that was bought and paid for by our taxes then the internet should definitely be categorized as a utility.



posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

I thought we were draining the swamp? This is a. Lobbyist move by massive regional monopolies buying out votes so they can charge consumers more money and control bandwidth to places they approve or don't approve.



posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

I believe isps are even protected by regions charter time Warner etc so you cant even really shop for a better deal



posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

wtf...

smdh



posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

There is hardly any competition, in fact, major ISPs like to divide the U.S. into territories so that only one of them is operating in each area.

As for prices increasing, my logic goes like this: ISPs will be able to to artificially slow down speeds of everything from online gaming to Netflix streaming unless the gaming company / streaming video company pays the ISP extra - this will result in prices going up for the consumer. In addition to this, ISPs will start enforcing strict data caps - but you might be able to watch unlimited Netflix, for a fee. It is even possible that you won't be able to access certain streaming video sites without paying a subscription fee to the ISP, or in some cases, not at all.

Besides prices increasing, I should mention that I believe this allows ISPs to block access entirely to any sites they see fit - which could include Pirate Bay or illegitimate "free streaming" websites.

That is just the beginning.
edit on 14pmThu, 14 Dec 2017 12:58:04 -0600kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

I agree completely the republicans can sway the loyal republicans but everyday silent majority voters will vote anyones arse out of you mess with their wallet and freedom of information

The Republicans are playing with fire



posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: darkbake
a reply to: Xtrozero

There is hardly any competition, in fact, major ISPs like to divide the U.S. into territories so that only one of them is operating in each area.

As for prices increasing, my logic goes like this: ISPs will be able to to artificially slow down speeds of everything from online gaming to Netflix streaming unless the gaming company / streaming video company pays the ISP extra - this will result in prices going up for the consumer. In addition to this, ISPs will start enforcing strict data caps - but you might be able to watch unlimited Netflix, for a fee.

That is just the beginning.


Well, you'll have to. My ISP is still doing scheduled maintenance at 9 AM on a Monday morning...




top topics



 
53
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join