FCC votes down net neutrality 3-2

Uncle Siggy

Promulgator of Annoying Tidbits of Information
Dec 4, 2015
3,652
2,737
Ohio
✟61,528.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
I heard what Kimmel said. So many things wrong in so few words.

That's not surprising being he's a mouthpiece for that political ideology...

The only thing that has changed with my ISP since I started with them back in 2003 is that they raised the speed up to 100MBPS for free when they started getting competition from ATT/Direct TV a few months ago in my area to keep me as a customer...
 
Upvote 0

AllButNone

Active Member
Jan 18, 2017
326
328
Canada
✟77,933.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
I would say people shouldn't worry so much about this. My feeling is that most economists are pretty undecided about whether this will be good or bad for consumers, though slightly more seem to see more downside to net neutrality than upside. Because of this uncertainty, the FCCs action is more of an experiment than anything.

I'm not saying I think the FCC made the right choice. I think it's reckless. Just, I don't yet see a reason for people to worry too much. For the time being the public will remain angered by this decision and so ISPs will need to tread softly. More importantly, if the FCCs decision ends up being detrimental, subsequent administrations can roll the decision back.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: NightHawkeye
Upvote 0

JGG

Well-Known Member
Mar 12, 2006
12,018
2,098
✟58,445.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Private
I would say people shouldn't worry so much about this. My feeling is that most economists are pretty undecided about whether this will be good or bad for consumers, though slightly more seem to see more downside to net neutrality than upside. Because of this uncertainty, the FCCs action is more of an experiment than anything.

I'm not saying I think the FCC made the right choice. I think it's reckless. Just, I don't yet see a reason for people to worry too much. For the time being the public will remain angered by this decision and so ISPs will need to tread softly. More importantly, if the FCCs decision ends up being detrimental, subsequent administrations can roll the decision back.

You mean like how they've rolled back the policy on fracking?
 
Upvote 0

NightHawkeye

Work-in-progress
Supporter
Jul 5, 2010
45,814
10,318
✟781,037.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
The only thing that has changed with my ISP since I started with them back in 2003 is that they raised the speed up to 100MBPS for free when they started getting competition from ATT/Direct TV a few months ago in my area to keep me as a customer...
Competition is a really great motivator. I discovered that when I asked my own ISP a few years ago, after signing up for DSL, whether they might want to match DSL's rates. To my surprise they did ... and also fixed the really crappy service which at times max'ed out under 1 Mbps. Within a month or so I saw a consistent 15 Mbps connection.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Uncle Siggy
Upvote 0

DaisyDay

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State
Jan 7, 2003
37,939
17,417
Finger Lakes
✟7,530.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The government was stupid enough to sign the agreements that the corporations presented.
Or the people who made the decisions had shares in the cable companies.
 
Upvote 0

AllButNone

Active Member
Jan 18, 2017
326
328
Canada
✟77,933.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
You mean like how they've rolled back the policy on fracking?

Some states have now banned fracking. If the political pressure is there, things can change.

I don't really want to get into a tangent on it, but a reason fracking isn't banned is because it's potentially better than many alternatives. Banning fracking has a very real chance of deepening environmental issues. For example, fracking has tapped into large stores of natural gas, displacing and continuing to displace much dirtier coal. Given this, politicians (even Obama) will (justly) resist this type of ban. Nevertheless, despite this, political pressure has started to give way to bans, so political pressure can work.

(If you're interested, here's a costs and benefits analysis of fracking.)
 
Upvote 0

Fantine

Dona Quixote
Supporter
Jun 11, 2005
37,039
13,063
✟1,077,460.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Your cost and benefits analysis is small comfort to the victims of fracking, like a family I know who lived 150 miles from the epicenter of a 5.5 earthquake caused by fracking. Her house fell off its foundation. She didn't have earthquake insurance because before fracking there wasn't any earthquake danger. Cost to repair: $15K.

At least the state of Oklahoma banned fracking in certain areas that had been hit by earthquakes--small comfort to those whose homes were already severely damaged.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Ygrene Imref
Upvote 0

AllButNone

Active Member
Jan 18, 2017
326
328
Canada
✟77,933.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Your cost and benefits analysis is small comfort to the victims of fracking, like a family I know who lived 150 miles from the epicenter of a 5.5 earthquake caused by fracking.

I knew I'd derail the thread.

Are you sure it was fracking? What's getting confused in the media is that most of these induced earthquakes are being caused by wastewater disposal wells, not fracking, at least if you believe the USGS. Wastewater injection is often associating fracking, but in terms of raw wastewater amounts, fracking produces less wastewater than many alternatives, such as coal and uranium, so in terms of induced earthquakes it's plausible there's a net benefit to fracking over alternatives.

Though obviously this doesn't help people who now suddenly find themselves next to wastewater disposal wells where they weren't before. But there's a solution that's better than banning, and that's imposing strict limits on the water pressures allowed in wastewater disposal wells.

But let's just suppose for a moment what I wrote above wasn't true. I'm pretty sure you care about global warming. I do too. In order to meet short term CO2 decreases, shifting production away from coal to natural gas is pretty critical, an important half-measure that will also save lives. There's a trade here. Your ban of fracking is small comfort to the thousands who will die in the next major heat wave. What's good for everybody isn't necessarily good for particular individuals, and vice-versa. There are always, always winners and losers in every decision that's made.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Jeffwhosoever

Faithful Servant & Seminary Student
Christian Forums Staff
Chaplain
Angels Team
Supporter
Sep 21, 2009
28,129
3,878
Southern US
✟391,377.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
I'm not seeing an overall benefit to consumers, only to shareholders with a lot of stock in Comcast. I heard Netlfix will be a loser in this. How is that?
 
Upvote 0

DZoolander

Persnickety Member
Apr 24, 2007
7,279
2,128
Far far away
✟112,634.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
I look at it this way...

I pay my ISP $x per month to deliver me the data that I want to consume, at the speeds they advertise. No more, no less. They are a pipe by which I choose what I want to see.

Net Neutrality legally codifies that as being the relationship that I have with them. I am happy with that relationship. I don't want it redefined. Removing net neutrality has the likely impact of changing them from being simply a pipe - to being a "content provider" - with all of the associated baggage that comes along with that.

For that reason, I don't want the relationship changed. They are the middleman by which my data is delivered. I don't want them getting their grubby little hands into the mix in deciding whether or not I've paid enough to consume the data that I choose. Data is data. There is no fundamental difference between one site or another. There is no difference between going to Facebook or going to some other site as far as networking goes - and a network provider is all they are.

I also am a developer. With net neutrality - my products either win or lose based upon their individual merit in the marketplace. I don't want Comcast coming along and saying "That's a sweet little app you've got there. Would be a shame if it became all laggy for your customers. (wink wink/nudge nudge)."

I see only downsides to removing it - on all levels - and no upside except allowing network providers to cut into other people's action.
 
Upvote 0

szechuan

Newbie
Jun 20, 2011
3,160
1,010
✟59,926.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
B-b-b-but the free market will save us!!

LOL

Another adminstrative giveaway to corporations. Yay for consumers....you better believe the consequences are coming.

Free Market aka screwing and milking consumers hard in both ISP and Healthcare.
 
Upvote 0

variant

Happy Cat
Jun 14, 2005
23,625
6,387
✟293,730.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
I want to know what got better under this Net Neutrality? I can't think of anything. The lack of competition was still present. The service? Nothing changed.

Rural areas in that have NO service provider at all? Still waiting. Nada still.

The ISP's were barred from specific practices like favoring their own web-services that they absolutely want to do.

The limited competition among ISP's is a differn't but related issue.

Eliminating Net Neutrality isn't going to give you more choice in service providers, it is going to give the bad choices you have more power.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

variant

Happy Cat
Jun 14, 2005
23,625
6,387
✟293,730.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Net Neutrality legally codifies that as being the relationship that I have with them. I am happy with that relationship. I don't want it redefined. Removing net neutrality has the likely impact of changing them from being simply a pipe - to being a "content provider" - with all of the associated baggage that comes along with that.

Which is exactly why many of the large ISP's have been buying content providers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DZoolander
Upvote 0

Uncle Siggy

Promulgator of Annoying Tidbits of Information
Dec 4, 2015
3,652
2,737
Ohio
✟61,528.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
To my surprise they did ... and also fixed the really crappy service which at times max'ed out under 1 Mbps.

Did they put in new cable or replace the modem???

They came and put in a new modem for me. I'm using both cable and wireless routers to feed all of the rooms in the house. That way no matter what kind of device the kids/grandkids bring with them they can use it...
 
Upvote 0

DZoolander

Persnickety Member
Apr 24, 2007
7,279
2,128
Far far away
✟112,634.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Another argument I hear a lot is "Net Neutrality is only about 3 years old now. Why are you so concerned? Were things so bad before 2015?"

That argument doesn't resonate with me for a few reasons.

Primarily - the market landscape has changed pretty significantly over the past few years. Just a few years ago - I would argue that most ISPs (cable companies) viewed data as a nice little side business...but their primary business was cable TV packages. They'd charge you $80+ per month for varying types of TV packages - pay per view - etc. That was their primary business. Internet service was a nice little side business for them. They benefited from providing the best kind of broadband circumstantially - because they had a nice big coax pipe going into your house. But the $40-$50 per month they charged you was a nice little addon to the tidy profits they were making from their PRIMARY business - TV.

But that's really started to change over the past few years. More and more people are becoming cable cutters...and as luck would have it for the ISPs...they're now getting their TV through what the cable companies used to view as the side business. They're not getting the $80+ per month for TV. The customer is getting their TV through Hulu/NetFlix/YouTube live/DirectTV's streaming service, etc...all for $25-$40ish per month which the cable company gets NONE of.

...and the cable company is providing the pipe to do it. I think it galls them. After all - they no longer get the cable tv subscription fee, they don't get the rental fee for the TV box, etc. The customer still gets TV and the cable company is still providing the pipe by which the TV is delivered.

That's what's changed - and I think that removing net neutrality is their attempt to "remedy" that situation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: szechuan
Upvote 0

NightHawkeye

Work-in-progress
Supporter
Jul 5, 2010
45,814
10,318
✟781,037.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Did they put in new cable or replace the modem???

They came and put in a new modem for me. I'm using both cable and wireless routers to feed all of the rooms in the house. That way no matter what kind of device the kids/grandkids bring with them they can use it...
They replaced my personal modem with their standard issue modem. That didn't fix anything although a few years later they decided to start charging me modem rent again ... which lasted until the day after I got that bill.

I don't know exactly what else they did, only that speeds picked up to a few Mbps immediately and within a month or so were up even higher to around 15 Mbps. Recently, the speed was running about 30 Mbps until I replaced the modem again, then it shot up to about 70 Mbps.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums