FCC reversal of net neutrality rules expected to be published Thursday

[NightHawkeye]

FCC reversal of net neutrality rules expected to be published Thursday

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Federal Communications Commission is expected to publish on Thursday its December order overturning the landmark Obama-era net neutrality rules, two sources briefed on the matter said Tuesday.
...
Congressional aides say the publication will trigger a 60-legislative-day deadline for Congress to vote on whether to overturn the decision.
...
Even if Democrats could win a majority in the Senate, a repeal would also require winning a vote in the House of Representatives, where Republicans hold a larger majority, and would still be subject to a likely veto by President Donald Trump.​

 

[super animator]

SHouldn't this be in the news section?

 

[NightHawkeye]

SHouldn't this be in the news section?

The subject is fair game in both forums. The subject has previously had discussion in both forums.

I made it clear why it's posted here this morning. The FCC publication triggers a 60-day window for Congress to act ... but even if they do Trump is expected to veto any such repeal of the repeal of the ill thought out mis-named Obama-era "net-neutrality" rules which classified ISPs as 1934-era utilities, effectively awarding them monopoly status with government protection.

 

[super animator]

It appears that you don't understand what "net-neutrality" means.

 

[Kentonio]

The subject is fair game in both forums. The subject has previously had discussion in both forums.

I made it clear why it's posted here this morning. The FCC publication triggers a 60-day window for Congress to act ... but even if they do Trump is expected to veto any such repeal of the repeal of the ill thought out mis-named Obama-era "net-neutrality" rules which classified ISPs as 1934-era utilities, effectively awarding them monopoly status with government protection.

You do love being taken advantage of by your corporate masters, don't you. But hey, Obama did it so it must be bad..

 

[NightHawkeye]

You do love being taken advantage of by your corporate masters, don't you. But hey, Obama did it so it must be bad..

Noting that the 1934 Title II classification gave us the Bell monopoly.

 

[PeachyKeane]

Noting that the 1934 Title II classification gave us the Bell monopoly.

And who would have such a monopoly today?

 

[NightHawkeye]

And who would have such a monopoly today?

Funny you should ask ...

AT&T, the reconstituted remnants of MaBell, seems to be the largest national ISP currently. They already know how to leverage the old Title II regulations to their advantage.

 

[PeachyKeane]

Funny you should ask ...

AT&T, the reconstituted remnants of MaBell, seems to be the largest national ISP currently. They already know how to leverage the old Title II regulations to their advantage.

But they're not a monopoly. Also seems odd that they'd lobby against net-neutrality.

 

[NightHawkeye]

But they're not a monopoly.

I know more than a few people who would disagree with you about that. They have a quasi-monopoly locally in the areas they serve with cable internet.

 

[PeachyKeane]

I know more than a few people who would disagree with you about that. They have a quasi-monopoly locally in the areas they serve with cable internet.

Not here in Minnesota. Comcast and Century Link and that's about it. AT&T has a small presence in the mobile market.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Not here in Minnesota. Comcast and Century Link and that's about it. AT&T has a small presence in the mobile market.

People complain even more loudly about Comcast abusing its quasi-monopoly status.

As for AT&T's mobile share, it's worth noting that genuine competition exists in cellular. Both AT&T and Verizon (which together comprise almost all of the old MaBell companies) have been forced to provide real competition in recent years. It's a beautiful thing.

 

[variant]

People complain even more loudly about Comcast abusing its quasi-monopoly status.

As for AT&T's mobile share, it's worth noting that genuine competition exists in cellular. Both AT&T and Verizon (which together comprise almost all of the old MaBell companies) have been forced to provide real competition in recent years. It's a beautiful thing.

Comcast AT&T and Verizon all love the downfall of net neutrality. You can't cast them as the villains and support the moves they want supported.

I mean you CAN like you are doing but don't expect people to believe you.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Comcast AT&T and Verizon all love the downfall of net neutrality. You can't cast them as the villains and support the moves they want supported.

I mean you CAN like you are doing but don't expect people to believe you.

I always find it amazing when people cast Obama-era regulations as if they were a gift from heaven.

It's not true.

 

[variant]

I always find it amazing when people cast Obama-era regulations as if they were a gift from heaven.

It's not true.

Your inability to find a coherent reason why we should praise the downfall of net neutrality continues.

Obama merely continued the stance on the internet that was policy before his time that companies like Comcast and Verizon won court cases against.

Sooner or later the internet will look like what the likes of Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T desire, they are not the bad guys in your story, they are the hero's. They have defeated net neutrality by putting the industries stooges in charge, and soon you'll get to learn what they were looking for all along.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Your inability to find a coherent reason why we should praise the downfall of net neutrality continues.

I never said you should. I've always favored real 'net neutrality'.

What Obama gave you was not that. It was 1934 Title II control of the internet. Nothing more, nothing less. Now, without it the internet will be allowed to operate as it did before Obama's control took effect. If you liked it then, you'll like it now.

Obama merely continued the stance on the internet that was policy before his time that companies like Comcast and Verizon won court cases against.

I have no love for either one. I refuse to be a customer of either one.

Sooner or later the internet will look like what the likes of Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T desire, they are not the bad guys in your story, they are the hero's.

Not heroes to me. I detest their policies just as I detest the policies of Microsoft, Apple, most conglomerates and big government.

The difference between you and me seems to be that you view big government as some sort of savior. I know better. Big government destroys rather than nurtures. History teaches that lesson again and again.

What I don't understand is why people continue to subscribe to cable TV and cable internet when they hate these companies so much. They do have real competitors you know. T-mobile, Sling, PS Vue. Subscribe to their competitors. That's what I do.

When I fired Dish a couple of years ago, I explained one of the main reasons was resentment about paying for local channels which hadn't been in my original deal with them. Did you know that cable subscribers now pay about $13 per month to their local over-the-air TV broadcasters. The cable companies charge customers much more of course. The $13 is just what they pay the NBC, CBS, ABC and Fox stations. Anyone who doesn't like their cable company shouldn't pay for it. I don't. The channels are available for free over the air.

The solution is competition ... and not being afraid to fire these companies when they implement bad policies. Curiously, within a month of the time I fired Dish they again offered service without locals at a significantly lower price. I guess I wasn't the only one who fired 'em. (Actually, I know I wasn't.) I've kept up with subscriber retention since and all the cable and satellite TV providers have been hemorrhaging customers the past few years due to "Cord-cutting". Significantly lower cost TV and internet service is available than most people get. The industry is in turmoil as the stodgy old providers scramble to remain competitive against nimble newcomers.

They have defeated net neutrality by putting the industries stooges in charge, and soon you'll get to learn what they were looking for all along.

Net neutrality is dead. Long live net neutrality!

Competition is available. Take advantage of it. These companies work for you, not the other way around. If you're expecting the government to save you from big companies, your faith is greatly misplaced. These big companies, for all their faults, are much more responsive to customer input than the government ever has been. Seriously.

 

[variant]

I never said you should. I've always favored real 'net neutrality'.

What Obama gave you was not that. It was 1934 Title II control of the internet. Nothing more, nothing less. Now, without it the internet will be allowed to operate as it did before Obama's control took effect. If you liked it then, you'll like it now.

The court cases that were mentioned earlier by me specifically said that net neutrality could not be enforced as it was in the past which is why title 2 was extended to the internet.

I have no love for either one. I refuse to be a customer of either one.

Not heroes to me. I detest their policies just as I detest the policies of Microsoft, Apple, most conglomerates and big government.

No, you are cheer-leading their take down of net neutrality.

First they sued so that net neutrality could not be attained without title 2 being extended to the internet, then they rigged the FCC to withdrawal that so that they can destroy net neutrality.

The difference between you and me seems to be that you view big government as some sort of savior. I know better. Big government destroys rather than nurtures. History teaches that lesson again and again.

What I don't understand is why people continue to subscribe to cable TV and cable internet when they hate these companies so much. They do have real competitors you know. T-mobile, Sling, PS Vue. Subscribe to their competitors. That's what I do.

I avoid them as best I can, but I fear that the goon squad of AT&T Comcast and Verizon will make that a fools errand when they make internet service act a lot more like cable TV so that they can make more money off of it.

The solution is competition ... and not being afraid to fire these companies when they implement bad policies. Curiously, within a month of the time I fired Dish they again offered service without locals at a significantly lower price. I guess I wasn't the only one who fired 'em. (Actually, I know I wasn't.) I've kept up with subscriber retention since and all the cable and satellite TV providers have been hemorrhaging customers the past few years due to "Cord-cutting". Significantly lower cost TV and internet service is available than most people get. The industry is in turmoil as the stodgy old providers scramble to remain competitive against nimble newcomers.

The companies have reacted to cord cutting by buying the content itself and now they are going to be empowered to guide you to their own content as never before.

Competition would be great but empowering cable providers through the lack of net neutrality does nothing of the sort.

Competition is available. Take advantage of it. These companies work for you, not the other way around. If you're expecting the government to save you from big companies, your faith is greatly misplaced. These big companies, for all their faults, are much more responsive to customer input than the government ever has been. Seriously.

No, the large corporations have purchased the government do do their bidding and now they have rigged it so that they will have to compete as little as possible.

Congratulations, you've achieved the exact opposite of your goal. The possibility that the government might hedge against the Comcast's of the world is removed and now you are freely at their whims. Hope they take care of you like you think they will.

 

[NightHawkeye]

First they sued so that net neutrality could not be attained without title 2 being extended to the internet, then they rigged the FCC to withdrawal that so that they can destroy net neutrality.

They be clever, then. Very clever.

Judging from their inability to retain customers currently, I'm just not seeing much cleverness.

I avoid them as best I can, but I fear that the goon squad of AT&T Comcast and Verizon will make that a fools errand when they make internet service act a lot more like cable TV so that they can make more money off of it.

Have you heard of fiber? How about 5G?

Opportunities abound. There are a half-dozen companies which already are, or soon will be competing for your internet business.

The companies have reacted to cord cutting by buying the content itself and now they are going to be empowered to guide you to their own content as never before.

Don't know about you, but I have more choices now than I've ever had for television programming ... and at low cost. I'm paying less now than I've paid in years, get more channels, have free DVR included and no contract at all.

Now, in truth my cable ISP has some of the poorest customer service in the industry but my wireless provider more than makes up for it by providing unlimited data and unlimited hotspot which I use frequently at a country cabin, to avoid going over the monthly data allowance, or when the cable is out. Life is good.

Competition would be great but empowering cable providers through the lack of net neutrality does nothing of the sort.

Not sure you understand how competition works. Find the provider offering the services you want and support them. Fire them regularly ... you don't need a reason, though it never hurts to provide a reason.

No, the large corporations have purchased the government do do their bidding and now they have rigged it so that they will have to compete as little as possible.

If only they could. If only they could.

Congratulations, you've achieved the exact opposite of your goal. The possibility that the government might hedge against the Comcast's of the world is removed and now you are freely at their whims. Hope they take care of you like you think they will.

Sigh ...

... guess I've just lived longer and seen more than you have. I remember the Bell system. I didn't like it at the time. They forced people to use only Bell system phones ... and charged for the number of phones in one's house. I didn't play that game and simply connected multiple phones to the line. I remember how well Title II worked. Not well at all. Title II simply empowered MaBell to become a behemoth which over-charged and under-performed.

Believe me when I tell you that competition is much, much better than depending on the benevolence of the government empowered monopoly. By the way, did you know that the break-up of AT&T was initiated under the Nixon administration? Little known fact. It took eight years for the anti-trust suit to wind its way through the court system which finally acted upon it during the Reagan administration.

 

[variant]

... guess I've just lived longer and seen more than you have. I remember the Bell system. I didn't like it at the time. They forced people to use only Bell system phones ... and charged for the number of phones in one's house. I didn't play that game and simply connected multiple phones to the line. I remember how well Title II worked. Not well at all. Title II simply empowered MaBell to become a behemoth which over-charged and under-performed.

Believe me when I tell you that competition is much, much better than depending on the benevolence of the government empowered monopoly. By the way, did you know that the break-up of AT&T was initiated under the Nixon administration? Little known fact. It took eight years for the anti-trust suit to wind its way through the court system which finally acted upon it during the Reagan administration.

Just because it's title 2 it doesn't mean it empowers monopolies, nor does anything the previous administration did mean monopolies were likely to form.

Where monopolies already exist enforcing net neutrality meant they couldn't coerce their customers toward their own content, and now they can. They can also make up tiered systems based upon what type of content you relieve. Nothing gets better by removing net neutrality as a federal mandate.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Just because it's title 2 it doesn't mean it empowers monopolies, nor does anything the previous administration did mean monopolies were likely to form.

The history is that title II did empower monopolies. I suspect that if you actually spent a few minutes looking at Title II you would not support it. At. All.

Here, take a look for yourself: http://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf

Title II begins on page 35 and ends on page 137. Did you know that Title II prohibits the use of certain words between individuals in communications. Seriously. Censorship is a major component of Title II. Again, just take a look at Title II.

Where monopolies already exist enforcing net neutrality meant they couldn't coerce their customers toward their own content, and now they can. They can also make up tiered systems based upon what type of content you relieve. Nothing gets better by removing net neutrality as a federal mandate.

I'm all in favor of "net neutrality". Title II is not net neutrality.