F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

[Almost there]

People already get adult content for free now (unless said websites they use independently charge). Why would someone who accesses adult content now support having to pay more to access content they already access?

The ISPs don't actually produce that adult content, but without NN protections they get the ability to block websites by default then charge their customers extra for access to them.

This is the whole basis behind supporting NN. Without it, ISPs can just extort their customers and segment the internet up into a TV-esque service.

Too much "what if". We'll see how this plays out. If it turns out to be really a bad thing, THEN we can get the "dull brute force" government involved. But that should be a last resort.

And competition may render your argument moot, also the legal ramifications of limiting sites they are not paying to provide (which is why this does not fit the cable TV paradigm.

They are simply giving you a roadway to the services. If they intentially block the entrances to those services' parking lots and requiring an extra fee to get there, well, I suppose it's fine if they don't find people flocking to their competitors who don't block the driveway. And what if they give you a really low rate, but charge you extra to unblock certain driveways.

i.e. what if a service blocks youtube, but only charges $10 a month for unlimited service, while the norm for unblocked in $80? Maybe we'll enter a "you get what you pay for" paradigm.

I like that concept.

 

[Almost there]

Semantics. The rules deemed unenforceable yesterday were much older than the Title II reclassification.

We are back to the paradigm we were under when this was passed three years ago.

And we will see where that leads us.

 

[Skavau]

Too much "what if". We'll see how this plays out. If it turns out to be really a bad thing, THEN we can get the "dull brute force" government involved. But that should be a last resort.

An "adult content package" is likely the very first package that you'll see. It's trivial to justify blocking porn website. It will be the basic template to see how much they can do.

And competition may render your argument moot, also the legal ramifications of limiting sites they are not paying to provide (which is why this does not fit the cable TV paradigm.

They are simply giving you a roadway to the services. If they intentially block the entrances to those services' parking lots and requiring an extra fee to get there, well, I suppose it's fine if they don't find people flocking to their competitors who don't block the driveway. And what if they give you a really low rate, but charge you extra to unblock certain driveways.

In many parts of the US, there is no competition.

i.e. what if a service blocks youtube, but only charges $10 a month for unlimited service, while the norm for unblocked in $80? Maybe we'll enter a "you get what you pay for" paradigm.

How is it conceivable to you that an ISP service could paywall youtube, despite producing nothing on there, but not pornographic websites?

I like that concept.

I don't. It balkanizes the internet.

 

[Almost there]

In many parts of the US, there is no competition.

I keep hearing that, but I live where there is no cable nor DSL, yet I have at least six options. Two satellite and four cell phone. I've chosen an excellent cell phone data package for my home use. Effectively unlimited use of movies, concerts, documentaries and TV shows on Amazon Prime.

Who only gets one choice? Do they have no satellites or cell towers around them? Are you talking about up the Kenai river in Alaska, where they survive off solar cells for their power?

 

[Skavau]

I keep hearing that, but I live where there is no cable nor DSL, yet I have at least six options. Two satellite and four cell phone. I've chosen an excellent cell phone data package for my home use. Effectively unlimited use of movies, concerts, documentaries and TV shows on Amazon Prime.

Who only gets one choice? Do they have no satellites or cell towers around them? Are you talking about up the Kenai river in Alaska, where they survive off solar cells for their power?

50 million US homes have only one 25Mbps Internet provider or none at all

 

[Skavau]

Here's a 3 year old picture, I assume it's not massively improved since then:

Here is a map showing areas of the US served by a single ISP (x-post /r/dataisbeautiful) - Can somebody say state-granted monopolies?

 

[Almost there]

How is it conceivable to you that an ISP service could paywall youtube, despite producing nothing on there, but not pornographic websites?

I'm just brainstorming.

The question is, why couldn't they? I mean, they are one of many windows to the world. Who says they can't block some and charge extra, in a world where they are not the only provider?

i.e. provide lousy service, lose your customers. It's basic free market logic and it works. Only when companies collude (which is illegal) does it become an issue. The market sets the price and services.

 

[Almost there]

50 million US homes have only one 25Mbps Internet provider or none at all

Key word: 25Mbps

I believe the fastest I've ever had was around 12 using speed tester. Most of the time it's around 5, and gets me everything I need, including uninterrupted high quality video.

 

[FenderTL5]

i.e. what if a service blocks youtube, but only charges $10 a month for unlimited service, while the norm for unblocked in $80? Maybe we'll enter a "you get what you pay for" paradigm.
I like that concept.

You and the ISPs.

 

[Skavau]

I'm just brainstorming.

The question is, why couldn't they?

Exactly. They couldn't. So your notion that blocking pornographic websites would cause legal issues is obviously, by your own admission, nonsense.

I mean, they are one of many windows to the world. Who says they can't block some and charge extra, in a world where they are not the only provider?

We should. I don't see how allowing ISPs to block websites helps entrepreneurs or small internet-based businesses.

 

[Belk]

I'm just brainstorming.

The question is, why couldn't they? I mean, they are one of many windows to the world. Who says they can't block some and charge extra, in a world where they are not the only provider?

i.e. provide lousy service, lose your customers. It's basic free market logic and it works. Only when companies collude (which is illegal) does it become an issue. The market sets the price and services.

I do through my elected officials. I feel no particular need to line the pockets of my ISP simply because they wish to make more money.

 

[FenderTL5]

Who only gets one choice? Do they have no satellites or cell towers around them? Are you talking about up the Kenai river in Alaska, where they survive off solar cells for their power?

Off the top of my head, Cumberland Plateau in Tennessee (Van Buren/Sequatchie Counties) would be an example
Yes, exactly - no cell service. Electricity and a POTs (plain old telephone) line.

 

[Almost there]

Exactly. They couldn't. So your notion that blocking pornographic websites would cause legal issues is obviously, by your own admission, nonsense.


We should. I don't see how allowing ISPs to block websites helps entrepreneurs or small internet-based businesses.

Me neither. With all of my comments regarding future ramifications I'm just thinking out loud and brainstorming. The cool thing is that by kicking the government out of this, we can do that. If it goes down a wrong road, that is when to get the expensive behemoth of the dumb brute force of government involved.

 

[Skavau]

Me neither. With all of my comments regarding future ramifications I'm just thinking out loud and brainstorming. The cool thing is that by kicking the government out of this, we can do that. If it goes down a wrong road, that is when to get the expensive behemoth of the dumb brute force of government involved.

I don't have a problem with making it illegal to prevent ISPs from throttling/blocking websites.

Not really invested in experimentation for the sake of it.

 

[FenderTL5]

..If it goes down a wrong road...

that's the reason for the reclassification under Title II..
that ship had lifted anchor and was beginning to set sail.

 

[Almost there]

Off the top of my head, Cumberland Plateau in Tennessee (Van Buren/Sequatchie Counties) would be an example
Yes, exactly - no cell service. Electricity and a POTs (plain old telephone) line.

They have satellite. At least two providers. And that brings up the point: If you want really, REALLY good internet, and you really, REALLY need it, move to a place that has it.

That was something I had to consider when I moved from Seattle to rural KY. And I checked the service before I bought. We use cell phones only in our home, and during the summer, when there are a lot of leaves blocking the signal, it can be spotty in the upper floor because we have a metal roof.

People have to take responsibility for their situation and stop expecting the government to come to make their world, wherever it is, just like the world everywhere else. There are advantages to living in Manhattan and there are advantages to living in Cumberland Plateau.

And disadvantages.

 

[Almost there]

I don't have a problem with making it illegal to prevent ISPs from throttling/blocking websites.

Not really invested in experimentation for the sake of it.

In free markets, it's ALL experimentation - until someone loses an eye.

 

[Almost there]

that's the reason for the reclassification under Title II..
that ship had lifted anchor and was beginning to set sail.

So some claimed. We'll see what happens now.

 

[Skavau]

They have satellite. At least two providers. And that brings up the point: If you want really, REALLY good internet, and you really, REALLY need it, move to a place that has it.

That was something I had to consider when I moved from Seattle to rural KY. And I checked the service before I bought. We use cell phones only in our home, and during the summer, when there are a lot of leaves blocking the signal, it can be spotty in the upper floor because we have a metal roof.

People have to take responsibility for their situation and stop expecting the government to come to make their world, wherever it is, just like the world everywhere else. There are advantages to living in Manhattan and there are advantages to living in Cumberland Plateau.

And disadvantages.

Soon it will be: "If you want internet that doesn't throttle websites you visit, just move."

 

[Skavau]

In free markets, it's ALL experimentation - until someone loses an eye.

I mean, we know how this will end. With ISPs blocking/throttling and working with big business to create monopolies. It may take a year, or it may take 3. I'm not really fond of the idea of allowing ISPs to be gatekeepers with the power they wield.