Republicans/FCC trying to do away with Net Neutrality again

it's ridiculous.... wrote:

I can't believe anyone who doesn't work for a carrier would possibly want this to pass. This is not "Making America Great Again." This is just pure and simple greed.

Consider this: If it passes, your provider might decide they don't want to give you access to this very site, whether or not you pay extra. Do you really want your provider to be able to make decisions like that on your behalf?

Please make a phone call and help save what little internet freedom we have left.

https://www.battleforthenet.com/

+1!

TLDR: BAD FOR BOTH DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS

We have Net Neutrality Now. Corporations want to take it away and charge more for websites. Will become censorship limiting the sites we access, like our messageboard. RIP LRC

https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/j693a/comment/c29i5tk

https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2443jw/eli5_what_is_net_neutrality_and_why_is_it_so/

Cause and effect. You elect a "pro-business" president you get a PRO-BUSINESS president.

Tax reform, net neutrality, etc.

You think corporations have your best interest in mind? Maybe if you're the CEO.

REPUBLICAN VOTERS HELP!!!!!! S

HILLARY WANTS THE INTERNET AND WANTS TO SILENCE CONSERVATIVES!!!! SHE WILL NOT STOP UNTIL SHE ACCOMPLISHES HER GOAL!!!!!

NET NEUTRALITY FOR ALL!!!!!!

it's ridiculous.... wrote:

Consider this: If it passes, your provider might decide they don't want to give you access to this very site, whether or not you pay extra. Do you really want your provider to be able to make decisions like that on your behalf?

Ridiculous hypothetical that doesn't have much to do with net neutrality. You can't legislate away every hypothetical scenario based on slippery slopes: Apple could release a software update blocking LetsRun for iPhone users, Google could censor LetsRun from search results, the domain registrar or web host could shut down LetsRun like they have for racist websites... All possible regardless of NN

Hardloper wrote:

it's ridiculous.... wrote:

Consider this: If it passes, your provider might decide they don't want to give you access to this very site, whether or not you pay extra. Do you really want your provider to be able to make decisions like that on your behalf?

Ridiculous hypothetical that doesn't have much to do with net neutrality. You can't legislate away every hypothetical scenario based on slippery slopes: Apple could release a software update blocking LetsRun for iPhone users, Google could censor LetsRun from search results, the domain registrar or web host could shut down LetsRun like they have for racist websites... All possible regardless of NN

A) Hypothetical, maybe. Ridiculous? Not at all. This kind of thing is exactly what a lot of people are worried about. The only reason we're having this discussion is that ISPs and the FCC want this change to be made. Hint, they don't want it changed just for laughs or because they think there's too much legislation on the books.

And if this does indeed change, why is such blocking so unlikely to happen? You say that only because today it doesn't happen. It doesn't happen because there is legislation in place specifically banning it.

B) In all of your examples some form of consumer choice is possible. You can buy a different phone, use a different search engine, move hosting providers. Not so for most Americans and their internet service. There are huge areas in which internet service is a monopoly. Solve that and maybe -- MAYBE -- this should be allowed. But otherwise you're just setting consumers up for even worse price gouging than we've already seen.

The ISP monopoly is being solved now that lots of people are ditching cable Internet for wireless (20% already according to Mark Cuban). As for why they want it changed - yes, extra regulatory burden has hurt ISPs and delayed infrastructure investment, especially smaller rural ISPs. As for totally blocking websites, it wasn't happening before 2015, and it isn't happening in countries without NN, so yes that hypothetical is pretty farfetched and not really the main thing NN addresses.

TheRealLegitCuck on Reddit wrote:

*Hijacking top comment, don't mind me.*

These are the emails of the 5 people on the FCC roster. **These are the five people deciding the future of the internet.**

The two women have come out as *No* votes. We need only to convince **ONE** of the other members to flip to a *No* vote to save Net Neutrality.

Blow up their inboxes!

* Ajit Pai -

Ajit.Pai@fcc.gov

* Mignon Clyburn -

Mignon.Clyburn@fcc.gov

* Michael O'Reilly -

Mike.O'Reilly@fcc.gov

* Brendan Carr -

Brendan.Carr@fcc.gov

* Jessica Rosenworcel -

Jessica.Rosenworcel@fcc.gov

Spread this comment around! We need to go straight to the source. Be **civil**, be **concise**, and make sure they understand that what they're about to do is UNAMERICAN.

Godspeed!

https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/7etmk7/comment/dq7ifqp?st=JABPOSXK&sh=c40afd7b

Where was the infrastructure work before NN? All I got was another 5 down for another $20. It took Google to make them all admit they had gig down. This is about harming us, and enriching them. F Trump, F the elites in the FCC and White House.

The California Senate voted on Wednesday to approve a bill that would reinstate the net neutrality regulations repealed by the Federal Communications Commission in December.

You want states rights? Here's states rights for you, right here.

Under the CA action, ISPs would actually MORE constrained than they are under Network Neutrality. Fark around with traffic in California, and no more government contracts for you. Most likely, other states will follow CA's lead, ala' CARB.

You're welcome.

All except the internet isn't a State issue. The Federal government is the jurisdiction over interstate commerce, not California.

I don't even know where to begin ...

Hardloper wrote:

Yeah just like when all that stuff happened until the law was created in 2015

0/10

You obviously haven't cut the cord yet -- umbilical.

Hardloper wrote:

Precious Roy wrote:

The US internet infrastructure is embarrassingly bad. In Japan, everyone has HD video on their laptops because high speed fiber is everywhere. In the US, it is just starting to trickle into major markets and the service is on a big learning curve.

Nice but what does that have to do with Net Neutrality? Those laws have not exactly encouraged private investment in Internet infrastructure. Japan does not appear to have net neutrality laws. I don't see any evidence that Internet service got better and cheaper in 2015 because of Net Neutrality.

Currently, the Internet in my building goes to crap during evening hours when everyone is on Netflix clogging the network. If ISPs could segregate traffic from high-bandwidth streaming services, maybe they could dedicate a fraction of bandwidth to let everyone else check their email, Wikipedia, LetsRun, whatever without interruption.

Hardloper. You have expressed your ignorance several times and that is just on page one of this thread. … Net Neutrality exists because providers do not want to pay to upgrade their infrastructure. You will feel the pain when you stream your pornos and they freeze at a climatic point.

Honestly NN won't matter in a few years with ubiquitous, non-monopolized Terabit Ethernet TbE and HD8K OTA TV available everywhere.

Electronic Frontier Foundation wrote:

Honestly NN won't matter in a few years with ubiquitous, non-monopolized Terabit Ethernet TbE and HD8K OTA TV available everywhere.

Not in the USA. The rest of the world, yes.

Not in the USA wrote:

Electronic Frontier Foundation wrote:

Honestly NN won't matter in a few years with ubiquitous, non-monopolized Terabit Ethernet TbE and HD8K OTA TV available everywhere.

Not in the USA. The rest of the world, yes.

Yes in the USA too. There will be so much cheap capacity no one company nor group of collaborators will be able to throttle down traffic.

Electronic Frontier Foundation wrote:

Not in the USA wrote:

Not in the USA. The rest of the world, yes.

Yes in the USA too. There will be so much cheap capacity no one company nor group of collaborators will be able to throttle down traffic.

Not in the USA within a few years.

In a few years the USA will have endless amounts of cheap Terrestrial FO and OTA uW and mWave trunks and Satellite channels enabling people to independently internetwork completely bypassing traditional ISPs, Telcos, and Cablecos. Around 2024 Photonic/Optical Communications will max out at terabit speeds. By then Quantum Communications will be in vogue which promises petabit speeds.