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

originally posted by: CrapAsUsual
a reply to: darkbake

This will actually be a good thing, just not in the way the crooks wanted.

I bet that a new protocol with its own encrypted dns servers will emerge in the next few years, in the mean time people will get used to stuff like tor and onion links, the so called darkweb will become mainstream.

This if the trump doesn´t get shot in the ass and obama doesn´t wins the 2020 elections

The ISPs can block tor and the deep web.

a reply to: fleabit

Ok, lets say your internet subscription is 69.99 a month... under net neutrality, you don't get any other deals, your limit is your limit speed.

NOW, without Net Neutrality, you'll start seeing things (and this is just a simple example) like a Netflix package, where you pay an extra 8$ a month for unlimited 4K netflix streaming. They can actually increase your speed while you're watching Netflix or some other service YOU want to pay for.

Especially since PC Game Streaming services are starting to come out, imagine the possibility now, pay a little extra, stream as much as you like, at higher speeds while using that streaming service. Xbox, Playstation, Nintendo, PC... the list keeps going on.

This is just an example, but you can apply a whole lot of other things to it. This is what I mean by Socialism vs Capitalism. With Net Neutrality out of the picture, it's going to give incentive to other companies to come out and compete (yay for Capitalism), they don't need to put up their own lines all over the place, they can piggy-back off any line they have contracts with. When Net Neutrality was in the picture, there was no incentive whatsoever for smaller companies to come out and try to play with the big boys, because everything would have been the same.

originally posted by: jacobe001

originally posted by: 3daysgone
Guys it is really simple. If they start messing around and internet prices sky rocket, then all we have to do is protest. About 2 months not using the internet and cable, they will change their minds very fast, and on a brighter note it would probably a very healthy 2 months for most of us.

If people protested them, the corporate media and their cheerleaders would go on smear campaign to demonize these people as commies and hippies that need to take a bath. That is how these corporate fascists play their game.

Not when they realize that this is not really a partisan issue.

a reply to: mindpurge

When Net Neutrality was in the picture, there was no incentive whatsoever for smaller companies to come out and try to play with the big boys, because everything would have been the same.

Under Title II the big boys were required to rent their infrastructure to smaller companies, with defined rates.

Under Title II competition was encouraged. Under Title I, not so much.

Under Title I, unless you install your own lines you are at the mercy of the big boys. This applies not only to ISPs.

a reply to: jacobe001

yes they can, that´s why I was suggesting an encrypted IP and dns system, that they can´t selectively block. It would have to be based on a kind of frequency hop system, not frequency of course but decentralised dns servers and the protocol would know where to get the addresses next.

a reply to: Phage

Title 2 did not require them to allow people to rent infrastructure. Though this is a good idea many European countries have done this. What it required was equal access meaning as an isp if i set up a vpn or cash data i have to o it for all companies. So as an isp i cant show bias making one company like net flix have an advantage in my market. So as an ISP its easier to not upgrade my network for video streaming

a reply to: dragonridr


TITLE II, PART I, SEC. 201.:
(a) It shall be the duty of every common carrier engaged in interstate or foreign communication by wire or radio to furnish such communication service upon reasonable request therefor; and, in accordance with the orders of the Commission, in cases where the Commission, after opportunity for hearing, finds such action necessary or desirable in the public interest, to establish physical connections with other carriers, to establish through routes and charges applicable thereto and the divisions of such charges, and to establish and provide facilities and regulations for operating such through routes

TITLE II, PART II, SEC. 251, (c):
(3) UNBUNDLED ACCESS .--The duty to provide, to any requesting telecommunications carrier for the provision of a telecommunications service, nondiscriminatory access to network elements on an unbundled basis at any technically feasible point on rates, terms, and conditions that are just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement and the requirements of this section and section 252. An incumbent local exchange carrier shall provide such unbundled network elements in a manner that allows requesting carriers to combine such elements in order to provide such telecommunications service.

a reply to: mindpurge

Wow, was it really necessary to insult everybody's intelligence over your personal opinion? LMAO at internet socialism. That's just fear based propaganda. That's not even a thing. The internet is naturally neutral. It's always been that way, Obama put the restrictions in place so that ISPs couldn't ruin it like they did with TV channels. The ISPs want to be able to make more money at our expense when they don't deserve it. Don't you get it, they want to make extra money for essentially doing NOTHING.

a reply to: Barcs

I’ll be watching from Washington State, where it seems like net neutrality will remain. We shall see whose internet is better in 5-10 years.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: dragonridr


TITLE II, PART I, SEC. 201.:
(a) It shall be the duty of every common carrier engaged in interstate or foreign communication by wire or radio to furnish such communication service upon reasonable request therefor; and, in accordance with the orders of the Commission, in cases where the Commission, after opportunity for hearing, finds such action necessary or desirable in the public interest, to establish physical connections with other carriers, to establish through routes and charges applicable thereto and the divisions of such charges, and to establish and provide facilities and regulations for operating such through routes

TITLE II, PART II, SEC. 251, (c):
(3) UNBUNDLED ACCESS .--The duty to provide, to any requesting telecommunications carrier for the provision of a telecommunications service, nondiscriminatory access to network elements on an unbundled basis at any technically feasible point on rates, terms, and conditions that are just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement and the requirements of this section and section 252. An incumbent local exchange carrier shall provide such unbundled network elements in a manner that allows requesting carriers to combine such elements in order to provide such telecommunications service.

Didnt apply to isps not all of title 2 applied the fcc had memorandums explaining what did. Isps are not like telephone companies so not all rules apply as i told you before title 2 only gives permission to fcc to control isps.

As i told you here is guidlines when it was re done in 96.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: dragonridr

Isps are not like telephone companies so not all rules apply as i told you before title 2 only gives permission to fcc to control isps.

No. Title II regulates owners of wire and cable communications infrastructure as common carriers. That's the whole point. AT&T owns a lot of backbone, but the FCC decided they are not a common carrier. The FCC decided that broadband doesn't count.