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

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Twitter removing posts from its own website doesn't and never has fallen under Net Neutrality rules. Twitter owns that content wholly. That was the case before Net Neutrality, during Net Neutrality, and after it is gone it will still be the case. Why is it so hard for free speech advocates to understand that content posted on a website is OWNED by that website and they can do whatever they want to it?

I agree believe it or not. But why then is the issue so different when an ISP wants to charge companies to use their infrastructure that they own?

The internet was created by the government, bro.

The internet was fully privatized in 1995, leaving ISPs to develop and maintain the infrastructure, bro.

Yes and that was also supported with tax payer money.
linky 1
linky 2 - modern day tax payer subsiding the ISPs

a reply to: Wardaddy454

So now you are moving the goal posts back. Since when was the discussion about websites that are "necessities" or not?

I think this is like the Y2k thing. All fluff.


I doubt we'll be negatively impacted.

originally posted by: Annee
I've been following the FCC before and including when Michael Powell was appointed chairman by "W" in 2001.

Ever heard of Clearchannel?

This total control of what media citizens are allowed to see/hear has been in the works for a long time.

I'm afraid you are right. Clear Channel has some exclusive rights for broadcasting at night I believe, while Sinclair now owns most, or all of it, but Sinclair owns a lot more, and is quietly gathering up many of the local TV stations, not affiliates, but actually owns them, Tribune is next on the list I gather, so with Trump and the FCC together all, or most of local news will be Trump news, it's not a joke, Sinclair was helping Trump in the campaign, (though they deny that)
So, while not yet '1984' the groundwork is being done...perhaps then 2024?

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: Wardaddy454

There were no clear market winners, and the landscape had not matured in terms of consumer adoption and e-commerce.

Different world today.

What the future now brings, is you'll pay for curated content/services and no option to dip outside the ecosystem bucket- that is, unless you are willing to pay other providers for their ecosystems.

Kind of like why some people pay for Netflix, Hulu and Amazon Prime video. People of means will be ok. Those with less means, not so much.

We were facing that with net-neutrality.

Think about the push by google and facebook to fight "fake news". They would curate what you saw based on what they deemed correct.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Wardaddy454

So now you are moving the goal posts back. Since when was the discussion about websites that are "necessities" or not?

Since you linked an article about Comcast wanting to charge Netflix, Disney, and Google.

Maybe you should make up your mind about what the discussion is? Or we can just stick to the OP.

a reply to: darkbake

I expressed my support for them to do exactly what they did, so I'm fairly happy with this development. Necessity is the mother of invention and invention is the mother of competition. Despite all of the doom saying, fear mongering, and unmitigated horsecrap the opposition spewed about this, it will end up being a wonderful thing so long as well meaning idiots in DC don't slowly try to regulate that which should only be regulated by the free market.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

Net neutrality is about protecting the public from big evil corporations via regulation, right?

Are Google, Youtube, Twitter, Amazon, Facebook, and Netflix big corporations? Why are they for net-neutrality, when the regulation wouldn't effect them either way? Any ISP would lose business if they hindered access to those platforms.

To begin with, Net Neutrality is not only about protecting the public from corporations but it is also in place to protect small businesses from the large businesses. If someone comes up with an innovation that makes video streaming much better than Netflix, then with Net Neutrality in place the traffic going to their site and to Netflix would be treated equal, thus giving the small business a chance to compete on a fair footing with the big corporation. Without Net Neutrality rules in place, Netflix can pay a premium to have their traffic prioritized over the new guy because they can afford it and the new guy can't. This gives Netflix and unfair advantage.

Those corporations are for Net Neutrality because with it in place the ISP's can't put additional paywalls in front of their sites. However, without Net Neutrality there is nothing stopping the ISP's from charging more to access their sites if those companies don't pay a premium to the ISP's.

"Not if they're the only ISP in town". True, but net-neutrality makes it harder for startup ISPs to compete. Doesn't seem like it, what with supposedly being neutral, but then we look back at the above companies. They are giants in their field, and can do anything they want. They won't be punished for playing favorites with their content like censoring content of people on the right or stifling competition. They are "too big" now, net-neutrality and greased palms helped them get there. Wonder why we haven't seen a new search engine get big? Or another Youtube/Twitter?

"They're private companies and can do what they want with their service". Then why was the argument for net-neutrality to prevent ISPs from charging other companies for using their infrastructure?

There is nothing in Net Neutrality that makes it either easier or harder for a new ISP to get off the ground. The simple fact is that the cost to enter that market is astronomical. Before a new ISP makes any money at all they must string cable and fiber over a wide area and build a network infrastructure. Oh and on top of that you have to fight lawsuits from the other ISP's that are worried you are affecting their monopolies.

It appears in this last little bit that you are arguing that since private companies such as Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc can decide what content appears on their products that ISP's should be able to charge more money or block access to their services. I find this funny, because you are upset that these companies are blocking certain users but that is exactly what the repeal of Net Neutrality does for ISP's. But, the difference is that the ISP's can block access to anything they disagree with on the ENTIRETY of the internet. They can now block whole domains. I agree that something should be done about censorship at the above mentioned companies but that is a completely different issue than Net Neutrality.


Now, with all of that said you never answered my question. How is Net Neutrality censorship?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Twitter removing posts from its own website doesn't and never has fallen under Net Neutrality rules. Twitter owns that content wholly. That was the case before Net Neutrality, during Net Neutrality, and after it is gone it will still be the case. Why is it so hard for free speech advocates to understand that content posted on a website is OWNED by that website and they can do whatever they want to it?

I agree believe it or not. But why then is the issue so different when an ISP wants to charge companies to use their infrastructure that they own?

The internet was created by the government, bro.

The internet was fully privatized in 1995, leaving ISPs to develop and maintain the infrastructure, bro.

Yes and that was also supported with tax payer money.
linky 1
linky 2 - modern day tax payer subsiding the ISPs

Ok well Huffpo gets a lot wrong and that's Tennessee. where I live the city built fiber infrastructure and rents it out to ISPs, which isn't all the different from what the ISPs wanted to do by charging Netflix and Hulu.

a reply to: darkbake

Turn out the lights the parties over. Back to the dark ages. Unless you can afford it, there goes your free to roam Internet.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

Not the same issue, and I have already commented on that topic.

Now the green light on steroids. If you don't like content providers doing that with their platforms, how will you like it when ISP (now content aggregators on a much larger scale) doing the same?

A sad demonstration that todays american government is not for the people but for the corporations and 1 percenters. Indicative of being rotten to the core.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

Good for you; that wasn't my point though. The point is that tax money has gone into the internet infrastructure of hte past and the present. So we damn well should get a say on being charged to use it.

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

Net neutrality is about protecting the public from big evil corporations via regulation, right?

Are Google, Youtube, Twitter, Amazon, Facebook, and Netflix big corporations? Why are they for net-neutrality, when the regulation wouldn't effect them either way? Any ISP would lose business if they hindered access to those platforms.

To begin with, Net Neutrality is not only about protecting the public from corporations but it is also in place to protect small businesses from the large businesses. If someone comes up with an innovation that makes video streaming much better than Netflix, then with Net Neutrality in place the traffic going to their site and to Netflix would be treated equal, thus giving the small business a chance to compete on a fair footing with the big corporation. Without Net Neutrality rules in place, Netflix can pay a premium to have their traffic prioritized over the new guy because they can afford it and the new guy can't. This gives Netflix and unfair advantage.

Those corporations are for Net Neutrality because with it in place the ISP's can't put additional paywalls in front of their sites. However, without Net Neutrality there is nothing stopping the ISP's from charging more to access their sites if those companies don't pay a premium to the ISP's.

"Not if they're the only ISP in town". True, but net-neutrality makes it harder for startup ISPs to compete. Doesn't seem like it, what with supposedly being neutral, but then we look back at the above companies. They are giants in their field, and can do anything they want. They won't be punished for playing favorites with their content like censoring content of people on the right or stifling competition. They are "too big" now, net-neutrality and greased palms helped them get there. Wonder why we haven't seen a new search engine get big? Or another Youtube/Twitter?

"They're private companies and can do what they want with their service". Then why was the argument for net-neutrality to prevent ISPs from charging other companies for using their infrastructure?

There is nothing in Net Neutrality that makes it either easier or harder for a new ISP to get off the ground. The simple fact is that the cost to enter that market is astronomical. Before a new ISP makes any money at all they must string cable and fiber over a wide area and build a network infrastructure. Oh and on top of that you have to fight lawsuits from the other ISP's that are worried you are affecting their monopolies.

It appears in this last little bit that you are arguing that since private companies such as Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc can decide what content appears on their products that ISP's should be able to charge more money or block access to their services. I find this funny, because you are upset that these companies are blocking certain users but that is exactly what the repeal of Net Neutrality does for ISP's. But, the difference is that the ISP's can block access to anything they disagree with on the ENTIRETY of the internet. They can now block whole domains. I agree that something should be done about censorship at the above mentioned companies but that is a completely different issue than Net Neutrality.


Now, with all of that said you never answered my question. How is Net Neutrality censorship?

Heres one example of why you are wrong

Let Comcast shoot itself in the foot, and drive traffic towards smaller ISPs

ETA: And I did answer. Did you not click the link in the bold text?

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
Gonna revisit this thread in a year 10 bucks says nothing has changed

You hope you'll be able to visit this thread in a year, right?

I was able to visit routinely prior to 2015.

Why would that change now?

It wouldnt and even if an isp blocked a website it would br throughtheir DNS server. Simple solution stop using theirs and use someone elses.even the chinese figured that one out.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Yeah, I used to be an unfettered globalist too, until I found the error of my ways.

Will be interesting to see if your position holds in a few years.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Good for you; that wasn't my point though. The point is that tax money has gone into the internet infrastructure of hte past and the present.

That's a state Issue, as all states handle it differently. As in my case compared to Tennessee.

So we damn well should get a say on being charged to use it.

You do. With your wallet.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
Gonna revisit this thread in a year 10 bucks says nothing has changed

You hope you'll be able to visit this thread in a year, right?

I was able to visit routinely prior to 2015.

Why would that change now?

It wouldnt and even if an isp blocked a website it would br throughtheir DNS server. Simple solution stop using theirs and use someone elses.even the chinese figured that one out.

Exactly.

I don't have to use OpenDNS, but its an option.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

Net neutrality is about protecting the public from big evil corporations via regulation, right?

Are Google, Youtube, Twitter, Amazon, Facebook, and Netflix big corporations? Why are they for net-neutrality, when the regulation wouldn't effect them either way? Any ISP would lose business if they hindered access to those platforms.

To begin with, Net Neutrality is not only about protecting the public from corporations but it is also in place to protect small businesses from the large businesses. If someone comes up with an innovation that makes video streaming much better than Netflix, then with Net Neutrality in place the traffic going to their site and to Netflix would be treated equal, thus giving the small business a chance to compete on a fair footing with the big corporation. Without Net Neutrality rules in place, Netflix can pay a premium to have their traffic prioritized over the new guy because they can afford it and the new guy can't. This gives Netflix and unfair advantage.

Those corporations are for Net Neutrality because with it in place the ISP's can't put additional paywalls in front of their sites. However, without Net Neutrality there is nothing stopping the ISP's from charging more to access their sites if those companies don't pay a premium to the ISP's.

"Not if they're the only ISP in town". True, but net-neutrality makes it harder for startup ISPs to compete. Doesn't seem like it, what with supposedly being neutral, but then we look back at the above companies. They are giants in their field, and can do anything they want. They won't be punished for playing favorites with their content like censoring content of people on the right or stifling competition. They are "too big" now, net-neutrality and greased palms helped them get there. Wonder why we haven't seen a new search engine get big? Or another Youtube/Twitter?

"They're private companies and can do what they want with their service". Then why was the argument for net-neutrality to prevent ISPs from charging other companies for using their infrastructure?

There is nothing in Net Neutrality that makes it either easier or harder for a new ISP to get off the ground. The simple fact is that the cost to enter that market is astronomical. Before a new ISP makes any money at all they must string cable and fiber over a wide area and build a network infrastructure. Oh and on top of that you have to fight lawsuits from the other ISP's that are worried you are affecting their monopolies.

It appears in this last little bit that you are arguing that since private companies such as Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc can decide what content appears on their products that ISP's should be able to charge more money or block access to their services. I find this funny, because you are upset that these companies are blocking certain users but that is exactly what the repeal of Net Neutrality does for ISP's. But, the difference is that the ISP's can block access to anything they disagree with on the ENTIRETY of the internet. They can now block whole domains. I agree that something should be done about censorship at the above mentioned companies but that is a completely different issue than Net Neutrality.


Now, with all of that said you never answered my question. How is Net Neutrality censorship?

Heres one example of why you are wrong

Let Comcast shoot itself in the foot, and drive traffic towards smaller ISPs

Did you read that source? The guy in the article supports net neutrality. He just recognizes some downsides too.

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
A sad demonstration that todays american government is not for the people but for the corporations and 1 percenters. Indicative of being rotten to the core.

Calm down Bernie, the world isn't ending after just 2 years of net neutrality.