Republicans/FCC trying to do away with Net Neutrality again

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

This is incredibly frustrating. The people have spoken time and time again that they want net neutrality. Getting rid of it will only help Comcast and the like get richer by exploiting being a monopoly middleman, hurting small internet businesses and competition.

Of course a few people might be out there drinking the FCC's coolade because they can't be arsed to think for themselves for 5 minutes ... example Hardloper: "Net neutrality is bad because we've always had net neutrality anyways." What? Also, before you get any more into BS revisionist history, ISPs actually did have occasional violations of net neutrality throughout the 2000's and were met with outrage and anger each time. This eventually led to NN rules being enacted in 2015.

Portugal doesn't have net neutrality and now they sell the Internet in packages, like different packages of TV channels. It's going to divide society all the more, with people getting different information from their select choice of package.

Another time for americans to pay for freedom. I think this would fit america really well.

The Portugal example is Fake News. A mobile provider is allowing you to shut off certain websites to keep you from using up the data you pay for.

Looks like a bundling, like a cable package. You can shut off any website from using up data now. That's not what they're doing--they're forcing you to choose.

http://www.businessinsider.com/net-neutrality-portugal-how-american-internet-could-look-fcc-2017-11

The most obvious problem with that story is that of course Portugal DOES have "Net Neutrality" being in the EU. But the provider is not restricting access to any website based on what "bundle" you choose but allowing you to restrict what you use your additional data for after you use up your base data (10 GB in that case).

This is what you get when you elect a billionaire to the Presidency.

This billionaire appoints a new FCC chairman who caters to the big telecom & cable industries who want to screw with the customers by finding ways to make more $$$.

Imagine that: Big business wanting to screw with the consumer because of their greed...who would have thought.

Plastered wrote:

This is what you get when you elect a billionaire to the Presidency.

This billionaire appoints a new FCC chairman who caters to the big telecom & cable industries who want to screw with the customers by finding ways to make more $$$.

Imagine that: Big business wanting to screw with the consumer because of their greed...who would have thought.

Just get your internet from a small mom and pop provider.

Gravy wrote:

Plastered wrote:

This is what you get when you elect a billionaire to the Presidency.

This billionaire appoints a new FCC chairman who caters to the big telecom & cable industries who want to screw with the customers by finding ways to make more $$$.

Imagine that: Big business wanting to screw with the consumer because of their greed...who would have thought.

Just get your internet from a small mom and pop provider.

Not an option where I live. It’s Spectrum or AT&T only.

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.

Getting rid of net neutrality is not about improving service by establishing a fast lane for watching videos and playing games. It is about letting ISPs charge you more for crappy service. What you are used to getting with net neutrality will now become the premium service and will cost much more. The ISPs will call these the "fast lanes" and will degrade service for the "slow lanes" that will cost less.

The concept of "bundling" also has nothing to do with bandwidth and data usage. It is just a way to stifle competition by making the major content providers like Netflix, Hulu and Youtube the standard package and charging you more for including an upstart content provider. No one will ever be able to challenge the big providers and all the upstarts will eventually fade away or get bought out.

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.

Before you know it evil corporations could censor certain content because THEY determine it to be hateful or fake news They could even limit which users you can see on their platforms. Next, they could determine which of us is better than the rest and certify them with a designation. The rest of you will be unimportant and relegated to the bottom of the page or not even seen at all. They could even remove upvotes from your posts to keep it from trending to the top of the page. Or even just remove it from trending altogether. All because you may have different political beliefs than the CEOs at evil corporations. I shudder at the thought of what a horrible, terrible censorship world we would live in.

Hardloper wrote:

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

If it's not impacting their bottom line why do you think the service providers are heavily lobbying to get the law repealed? This absolutely WILL impact the kinds of services consumers receive and not at all in a consumer-positive way.

Gravy wrote:

Plastered wrote:

This is what you get when you elect a billionaire to the Presidency.

This billionaire appoints a new FCC chairman who caters to the big telecom & cable industries who want to screw with the customers by finding ways to make more $$$.

Imagine that: Big business wanting to screw with the consumer because of their greed...who would have thought.

Just get your internet from a small mom and pop provider.

Who are subcontractors to the major telcos.

Who are peering with other telcos, who can now force anyone to pay for priority. Your 5000 customers using netflix start having QOS problems because the carrier sees an opportunity to make money.

None of you are probably merchants who deal with an issuing bank, but, that's exactly how things will shake out. The end result is an antiquated system that makes the issuing banks billions.

Hardloper wrote:

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.

Removing common carrier status does not solve your problem. The provider is indifferent to your congestion issue. The normal course of events appears to be ISP's turning "the Internet" into a walled garden without common carrier status.

The only consequence to you is worse service more hours of the day from content providers whom your ISP believes to be competitors.

Yeah, right wrote:Not an option where I live. It’s Spectrum or AT&T only.

AT&T has ISP customers. For example:

Verizon has them also.

THIS IS WHAT THE INTERNET COULD LOOK LIKE!!! TERRIBLE!!!!

https://i.imgur.com/D6svbIf.png

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/