F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

[LoAmmi]

Net neutrality has nothing to do with limiting competition. If your local ISP has an effective monopoly, that isn't going to change with these rule changes.

With net neutrality, your ISP could not charge you more for "streaming Netflix or whatever". You paid for a connection, what you did with it was your concern.

Everything goes hand-in-hand though. Companies lobby for laws that restrict the competition they can face in an area, then lobby for rules that would let them do things like charging more for streaming.

 

[Almost there]

This really gets to the core, and may explain that it is where someone falls on the politcal scale that determines their attitude about the recent Net Neutrality death:

On Net Neutrality: Do You Trust Government or the Private Sector? -

 

[LoAmmi]

This really gets to the core, and may explain that it is where someone falls on the politcal scale that determines their attitude about the recent Net Neutrality death:

On Net Neutrality: Do You Trust Government or the Private Sector? -

I'd vote neither but I'd trust the government over corporations. At least I can vote out government people who do bad things.

 

[Almost there]

I just saw this somewhere else. Pretty funny:

Net Neutrality made the Internet neutral, like the Affordable Health Care Act made healthcare affordable.

 

[Almost there]

I'd vote neither but I'd trust the government over corporations. At least I can vote out government people who do bad things.

And I trust corporations more than government. The market/competition tends to keep them honest. The exception is in employee and customer safety.

Thing is, corporations can't legally use guns to get their way. Only the government can do that.

But now we see why we disagree.

 

[Almost there]

Everything goes hand-in-hand though. Companies lobby for laws that restrict the competition they can face in an area, then lobby for rules that would let them do things like charging more for streaming.

Yes, that is one reason they may want government out. They are always trying to get a leg up on their competition, but if they can get the big and stupid brute of government to do their bidding, so much the better.

 

[LoAmmi]

And I trust corporations more than government. The market/competition tends to keep them honest. The exception is in employee and customer safety.

Thing is, corporations can't legally use guns to get their way. Only the government can do that.

But now we see why we disagree.

It wasn't the government that made my mother fight for surgery she needed to stay alive. That was corporations. It wasn't the government that messed up processing a payment and attempted to foreclose on a family I know who had paid their bills and cost this family thousands of dollars in legal bills. That was corporations.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The market/competition tends to keep them honest.

That only happens in sectors where there is adequate competition. I would argue that in terms of telecomm/internet, there is not. There is faux-competition.

...but much like the competitors in the healthcare industry aren't truly competing with each other, neither are the phone/tv/internet providers.

When all of the "competitors" meet up at strategy conferences and all make an agreement not to undercut each other on prices (IE: "If we all agree not to charge less than $40, all of our profits will stay high"), the real competition isn't Verizon vs. AT&T, the real competition is between AT&T & Verizon vs. The Consumer Market.

I've touched on this in healthcare conversations...but 100% unrestricted free markets only work in non-essential markets where providers are actually competing against each other and not working with each other to artificially keep prices high. As soon as you have a scenario in which the customer urgently needs your product/service (like healthcare), or where providers collaborate with each other to figure how they can avoid the effects of true competition...might as well stick a fork in it...it'd done. Nothing other than sensible regulation solves that issue.

 

[Yonny Costopoulis]

I just saw this somewhere else. Pretty funny:

Net Neutrality made the Internet neutral, like the Affordable Health Care Act made healthcare affordable.

Are you being obtuse? Do you think your healthcare was affordable when it was completely in private hands? You were in agreement with insurance companies accepting payments for coverage, then denying coverage based on "pre-existing conditions" when the customer was sick?

 

[Skavau]

Yes, that is one reason they may want government out. They are always trying to get a leg up on their competition, but if they can get the big and stupid brute of government to do their bidding, so much the better.

But legislation like NN prevents them from doing that.

 

[KCfromNC]

I just saw this somewhere else. Pretty funny:

Net Neutrality made the Internet neutral, like the Affordable Health Care Act made healthcare affordable.

In what specific ways did net neutrality fail to do what it set out to do?

 

[Landon Caeli]

For any folks who want to defend this, I'm interested to know why. In their own words, not a c&p from Breitbart or its ilk.

I don't necessarily defend it, but when Net neutrality was applied in 2015, I didn't notice the internet being any better... If anything, probably inappropriate content will be slower to download after this, or will become less available, which isn't really a bad thing IMO.

I assume it's all about inappropriate content.

 

[Landon Caeli]

I think all that did change was that free inappropriate content videos were made accessable.

That was the "change" Obama was talking about.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I didn't notice the internet being any better...

I think all that did change was that free inappropriate content videos were made accessable.

Then it sounds like you were fortunate enough not to live in an area where one solitary provider had a regional monopoly.

I was not as fortunate.

My ISP (who was also the only cable TV provider in town as well) decided it was reasonable to punish cord-cutters by putting a ridiculously low data cap and bandwidth option in place (it was 5M down/1M up with a 80GB transfer cap...if you want to have the capacity to be a streamer and cord-cutter, you had to pay an up-charge that just so happened to be the price one would have to pay for their basic cable TV package...how coincidental, right? They also were blocking traffic to specific VOIP phone services (Apple's VOIP app, Skype, Google Hangouts)...which, once you signed up for their home phone service, surprise surprise, the block was lifted...interesting how that works.

Of course, if you were a cable TV subscriber with them, you got free unlimited internet with a 50M download rate.

So basically, their policy was "whether you want to our TV service or not...if you want to watch TV in any form....we're gonna get our $70 no matter what!"

However, once certain laws were put in place...they were forced to change their service level and had/have a 100MB with a 1TB cap for $48.95/month that's available whether you're a TV subscriber or not.

Once these laws are rolled back, I expect to seem them revert to their old ways pretty quickly.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Does this mean the FCC no longer has charge of ISP's?

 

[Sistrin]

F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules.

Good for them.

Regardless of your politics, Net Neutrality was a good thing for all of us.

No it wasn't. It was another attempt to impose the Fairness Doctrine, only this time to the internet.

 

[Skavau]

I don't necessarily defend it, but when Net neutrality was applied in 2015, I didn't notice the internet being any better... If anything, probably inappropriate content will be slower to download after this, or will become less available, which isn't really a bad thing IMO.

I assume it's all about inappropriate content.

Not a bad thing, why?

Because you don't like it?

 

[Skavau]

Good for them.



No it wasn't. It was another attempt to impose the Fairness Doctrine, only this time to the internet.

This isn't even remotely comparable. Your ISP isn't broadcasting you content, or signing deals with other companies to promote their content. You find it yourself.

Do you like the idea of your ISP blocking or throttling sites it doesn't like?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Good for them.

No it wasn't. It was another attempt to impose the Fairness Doctrine, only this time to the internet.

You're way off the mark here...

Sounds like you're just parroting back something you've read or heard on a right-wing media outlet that's desperately trying to defend this move simply on the grounds that "if it's something Obama was a part of, getting rid of it must = good"


Unless, that is, you can make a case for why a company should be able to interfere with the free market and artificially squash access to their competition and censor speech and expression.

Like I mentioned in another thread (or maybe it was this one, I forget)

Giving cable companies free reign to control internet access would be the same as putting a big box retailer in charge of road maintenance for a city. They're going to plow a nice neat path to them, and intentionally block the roads to their competitors (or leave them in disrepair) to artificially drive business to themselves (even if the market technically preferred one of their competitors).

This isn't a hypothetical "this could potentially happen" sort of thing... Verizon and Comcast were caught doing this multiple times before the laws were put in place.

Heck, my local cable company (who's also the only ISP in town) did it.

 

[HannahT]

My ISP (who was also the only cable TV provider in town as well) decided it was reasonable to punish cord-cutters by putting a ridiculously low data cap and bandwidth option in place (it was 5M down/1M up with a 80GB transfer cap...if you want to have the capacity to be a streamer and cord-cutter, you had to pay an up-charge that just so happened to be the price one would have to pay for their basic cable TV package...how coincidental, right? They also were blocking traffic to specific VOIP phone services (Apple's VOIP app, Skype, Google Hangouts)...which, once you signed up for their home phone service, surprise surprise, the block was lifted...interesting how that works.

Wow! What provider was that?

The Federal Trade Commission has broad authority to police unfair, deceptive, and anticompetitive practices online. They can reported, fined, etc.

And unlike the FCC, the Federal Trade Commission can order consumer redress (such as refunds) for violations of federal law.