BREAKING: FCC votes in favor of Net Neutrality repeal

[omerome]

The belief that Ajit and those who support the repeal of Net Neutrality that this would somehow spur the economy and create competition is all a lie. It's crap.

Article: One big reason we lack Internet competition: Starting an ISP is really hard

Millions of Americans would gladly switch from their DSL or cable Internet service to fiber, which in many cities delivers speeds of 1Gbps. That's 250 times faster than the 4Mbps download bandwidth that qualifies as "broadband" under the Federal Communications Commission definition. As of Dec. 2012, 29 percent of US households lived in census tracts with one or zero providers offering fixed Internet service of at least 6Mbps, according to FCC data. While the other 71 percent of census tracts had at least two providers offering 6Mbps, they may not offer that speed to all households in each area, the FCC said. Cable and DSL dominate nationally, with fiber-to-the-premises accounting for only 6.7 million out of 92.6 million fixed connections of at least 200Kbps.

Seems like a huge market opportunity, right? But actually starting a new Internet service is no simple task.

A new fiber provider needs a slew of government permits and construction crews to bring fiber to homes and businesses. It needs to buy Internet capacity from transit providers to connect customers to the rest of the Internet. It probably needs investors who are willing to wait years for a profit because the up-front capital costs are huge. If the new entrant can't take a sizable chunk of customers away from the area's incumbent Internet provider, it may never recover the initial costs. And if the newcomer is a real threat to the incumbent, it might need an army of lawyers to fend off frivolous lawsuits designed to put it out of business.

So much for competition. This is why it's hard for up and coming companies to get their feet wet in becoming competition for big-name ISPs like Comcast, Verizon, AT&T. Once they try to enter the marketplace, they face lawsuits for all sorts of foolish crap, face high startup costs, and then trying to have a good competitive price. And as I mentioned before, Google can't even enter the marketplace and they are a huge company. I was excited when I first found out about Google Fiber so I can tell Comcast to kick rocks, but ISPs like them have done a good job of keeping that from being a reality.

This situation isn't like opening a sandwich shop next to a Subway because Subway wouldn't sue you just because you entered their territory. But this is one of the setbacks companies face with ISPs.

Here is more in the article:

That's what happened to fiber ISP Falcon Broadband in Colorado Springs. The company started in 2003, competing against Adelphia, Falcon's former engineering chief Michael Wagner said.

"They did not want anybody else to come into their territory because they wanted to have that monopoly with their franchise agreements," Wagner told Ars. "What they started to do was file frivolous lawsuit after lawsuit to try to basically bankrupt us so we couldn't compete."

Wagner recalled about 10 lawsuits from Adephia, and later Comcast, who took over Adelphia's operations in 2006.

"We've had lawsuits that we were tampering with their equipment; we had lawsuits that we were violating different FCC requirements for the cable plants," he said. "We had lawsuits that we were not honoring different content contractual obligations and that we were doing unfair practices, basically, in the franchising cable agreements."

Most of the suits "were either thrown out right away, or they didn't pursue it. It was mostly just to make us spend $400 dollars an hour on lawyers," Wagner said. The legal crusade lasted several years and finally tapered off after Comcast acquired Adelphia's assets, he said.

Source: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/04/one-big-reason-we-lack-internet-competition-starting-an-isp-is-really-hard/

Competition leads to innovation. With no competition, we have exactly what we're going through now and that's stagnation. Why in this day and age there are areas in our country (supposedly a developed one) where people do not even have access to broadband speeds? It already should be put in place. It's unacceptable that we're being treated this way as citizens - all in the name of greed.

[Greenie]

ok let me explain this for the 50th time I pay less now then before net neutrality for better service simple yes, now with the repeal I will pay more for less and there is no competition.
And you are wrong the idea of a free market place you know capitalism depends on the free market place and the market place being regulated.
so tell us do you work for for an ISP I know I did when I when I started in IT. So please tease tell us how the internet works. Because according to you my 20 yrs in IT and 5 yrs at an ISP means I don't understand how the internet and the market place works

I don’t give a damn what you do. This is about money on your behalf too. You’re mad you will have to pay more for less. Welcome to the world as we know it.

As I said before people can either switch ISP’s or move to an area where their personal needs are met.

Greenie can it your wrong and everyone knows, I don't give a damn other then letting you know that I know what I am talking about and you are wrong but to freaking stubborn to admit it

How about you leave me the hell alone and I will leave you alone.

Cool?

Cool.

[Jables120]

No, it’s true.

As a matter of fact everything people are arguing for makes no sense to me. Literally mad at little loss of convenience(speed) and companies placing their own products above the competitions(you can’t have google because your ISP is verizon).

How is not having access to the largest search engine in the world a “little loss of convenience”? Entire businesses depend on google. If I own a blog or a website and depend on ad revenue from google AdWords, how am I supposed to manage my account if my provider is Verizon (who owns yahoo and has decided to block google)?

You’ve been given countless examples of how this could potentially harm consumers. But you choose to ignore it and just parrot the stances of others when you clearly don’t understand the issue. Derp derp derp “Netflix and chill will be expensive” derp derp You’ve embarrassed yourself thoroughly in this thread.

No, you’ve embarrassed yourself. You want something for nothing. You want **** your way or no way.

If you’re so hung up on google and your ISP doesn’t carry it. Either switch to an ISP that does or move to an area that has an ISP that does. People move for work all of the time. Adjust or get left behind.

You have the strangest arguments against net neutrality. I could see someone arguing against it because it will increase competition, but you think it will be a positive thing if people have to move in order to have internet access? How would that be good for people or the country? I guess your dream is to have people go to the library so they can learn the Dewey Decimal System.

[Greenie]

my problem was that, it was quite apparent, that the citizens don't want this, but it happened anyway. can we impeach those 3 republicans? or do we have to wait for them to be done with their term? hopefully they aren't voted back in by their constituents

A lot of citizens don’t actually care about this. Why this was even in place is unknown to me and I can admit that.

All I know is that internet hasn’t changed much in the last 2 years. 2015/2014 was just fine. So was 2013, 2012, 2011 and so on. People acting like the world is burning because of this is bothersome more than anything.

I don't know where you get that a lot of citizens don't care about this. This has been a hot-button issue for a while. Everyone in my social circle is aware of this and I've read and watched plenty of videos about this since Trump nominated this Ajit as the chair.

Ajit has been very smug and frankly, acting like a douche while lying about the effect the repeal will do. The FCC even faked thousands of names in support of the repeal just to boost their support numbers; even people who are not even alive anymore. There is clear corruption here because Ajit himself is affiliated with the same ISPs who will benefit the most from this. According to several polls, the majority of Americans (both republican and democrat) have greatly opposed this and yet three people in the FCC decided to go against the wishes of the people.

This is not just about saying that the world is burning, but this is the start of where companies can now able to control content and that is entering dangerous territory; the start of censorship. This is companies essentially paying congressmen to pass beneficial legislation for themselves - at the expense of the American people. Basically, money over what's great for the country. That doesn't sound like a democracy to me.

Guess they didn’t poll the independents.
My social circle doesn’t really care.

As far as censorship is concerned I don’t feel like that has changed much within the last two years. Nothing changed from 2013/14 to 2015/16/17.

[omerome]

A lot of citizens don’t actually care about this. Why this was even in place is unknown to me and I can admit that.

All I know is that internet hasn’t changed much in the last 2 years. 2015/2014 was just fine. So was 2013, 2012, 2011 and so on. People acting like the world is burning because of this is bothersome more than anything.

I don't know where you get that a lot of citizens don't care about this. This has been a hot-button issue for a while. Everyone in my social circle is aware of this and I've read and watched plenty of videos about this since Trump nominated this Ajit as the chair.

Ajit has been very smug and frankly, acting like a douche while lying about the effect the repeal will do. The FCC even faked thousands of names in support of the repeal just to boost their support numbers; even people who are not even alive anymore. There is clear corruption here because Ajit himself is affiliated with the same ISPs who will benefit the most from this. According to several polls, the majority of Americans (both republican and democrat) have greatly opposed this and yet three people in the FCC decided to go against the wishes of the people.

This is not just about saying that the world is burning, but this is the start of where companies can now able to control content and that is entering dangerous territory; the start of censorship. This is companies essentially paying congressmen to pass beneficial legislation for themselves - at the expense of the American people. Basically, money over what's great for the country. That doesn't sound like a democracy to me.

Guess they didn’t poll the independents.
My social circle doesn’t really care.

As far as censorship is concerned I don’t feel like that has changed much within the last two years. Nothing changed from 2013/14 to 2015/16/17.

Oh, but they did poll the independents.

Respondents were given a short briefing and asked to evaluate arguments for and against the proposal before making their final recommendation. The survey content was reviewed by experts in favor and against net neutrality, to ensure that the briefing was accurate and balanced, and that the strongest arguments were presented.

At the conclusion, 83% opposed repealing net neutrality, including 75% of Republicans, as well as 89% of Democrats and 86% of independents.

Source: http://www.publicconsultation.org/united-states/overwhelming-bipartisan-majority-opposes-repealing-net-neutrality/

What if let's say, Comcast wants to build the world's most popular sports discussion forum. RealGM would now be a competitor and because of the repeal, Comcast (my ISP) could just decide to reduce my internet speed to access this site, all to push me and every one of their subscribers to their product. Does that sound right to you?

Or if there is a huge battle between RealGM and Comcast's forum and Comcast decides that they would outright block RealGM or charge their subscribers $10 more a month for access. Would you be in support of that?

[Jalen Bluntson]

Media monopolies. Information monopolies. Two really dangerous things to think are no big deal. Ignorance.

[Greenie]

How is not having access to the largest search engine in the world a “little loss of convenience”? Entire businesses depend on google. If I own a blog or a website and depend on ad revenue from google AdWords, how am I supposed to manage my account if my provider is Verizon (who owns yahoo and has decided to block google)?

You’ve been given countless examples of how this could potentially harm consumers. But you choose to ignore it and just parrot the stances of others when you clearly don’t understand the issue. Derp derp derp “Netflix and chill will be expensive” derp derp You’ve embarrassed yourself thoroughly in this thread.

No, you’ve embarrassed yourself. You want something for nothing. You want **** your way or no way.

If you’re so hung up on google and your ISP doesn’t carry it. Either switch to an ISP that does or move to an area that has an ISP that does. People move for work all of the time. Adjust or get left behind.

You have the strangest arguments against net neutrality. I could see someone arguing against it because it will increase competition, but you think it will be a positive thing if people have to move in order to have internet access? How would that be good for people or the country? I guess your dream is to have people go to the library so they can learn the Dewey Decimal System.

No.

If you NEED certain platforms to make your living and it’s not provided or offered in you area you should move to a place that gives you those things. People move all the time for work purposes.

The internet is mostly used for entertainment purposes or general service for the average person. Most people are more concerned with how they will entertain themselves or get stuff without leaving home over how they will put food on the table. When it comes to that I really don’t care about NN.

[omerome]

No.

If you NEED certain platforms to make your living and it’s not provided or offered in you area you should move to a place that gives you those things. People move all the time for work purposes.

The internet is mostly used for entertainment purposes or general service for the average person. Most people are more concerned with how they will entertain themselves or get stuff without leaving home over how they will put food on the table. When it comes to that I really don’t care about NN.

That argument fails based on the person's job. I am a software tester who focuses on mainframe/web applications. There is no way for me to do my work without internet access.

When I work from home, it is required for me to use VPN to access the private network of my organization. So no, the internet is not mostly used for entertainment purposes. Some people need the internet to put food on their table.

[Fury]

No, you’ve embarrassed yourself. You want something for nothing. You want **** your way or no way.

If you’re so hung up on google and your ISP doesn’t carry it. Either switch to an ISP that does or move to an area that has an ISP that does. People move for work all of the time. Adjust or get left behind.

You have the strangest arguments against net neutrality. I could see someone arguing against it because it will increase competition, but you think it will be a positive thing if people have to move in order to have internet access? How would that be good for people or the country? I guess your dream is to have people go to the library so they can learn the Dewey Decimal System.

No.

If you NEED certain platforms to make your living and it’s not provided or offered in you area you should move to a place that gives you those things. People move all the time for work purposes.

The internet is mostly used for entertainment purposes or general service for the average person. Most people are more concerned with how they will entertain themselves or get stuff without leaving home over how they will put food on the table. When it comes to that I really don’t care about NN.

Not everyone can afford convenience like you. I’ll tell my students that they need the time to get to a library inbetween school and work

[Greenie]

I don't know where you get that a lot of citizens don't care about this. This has been a hot-button issue for a while. Everyone in my social circle is aware of this and I've read and watched plenty of videos about this since Trump nominated this Ajit as the chair.

Ajit has been very smug and frankly, acting like a douche while lying about the effect the repeal will do. The FCC even faked thousands of names in support of the repeal just to boost their support numbers; even people who are not even alive anymore. There is clear corruption here because Ajit himself is affiliated with the same ISPs who will benefit the most from this. According to several polls, the majority of Americans (both republican and democrat) have greatly opposed this and yet three people in the FCC decided to go against the wishes of the people.

This is not just about saying that the world is burning, but this is the start of where companies can now able to control content and that is entering dangerous territory; the start of censorship. This is companies essentially paying congressmen to pass beneficial legislation for themselves - at the expense of the American people. Basically, money over what's great for the country. That doesn't sound like a democracy to me.

Guess they didn’t poll the independents.
My social circle doesn’t really care.

As far as censorship is concerned I don’t feel like that has changed much within the last two years. Nothing changed from 2013/14 to 2015/16/17.

Oh, but they did poll the independents.

Respondents were given a short briefing and asked to evaluate arguments for and against the proposal before making their final recommendation. The survey content was reviewed by experts in favor and against net neutrality, to ensure that the briefing was accurate and balanced, and that the strongest arguments were presented.

At the conclusion, 83% opposed repealing net neutrality, including 75% of Republicans, as well as 89% of Democrats and 86% of independents.

Source: http://www.publicconsultation.org/united-states/overwhelming-bipartisan-majority-opposes-repealing-net-neutrality/

What if let's say, Comcast wants to build the world's most popular sports discussion forum. RealGM would now be a competitor and because of the repeal, Comcast (my ISP) could just decide to reduce my internet speed to access this site, all to push me and every one of their subscribers to their product. Does that sound right to you?

Or if there is a huge battle between RealGM and Comcast's forum and Comcast decides that they would outright block RealGM or charge their subscribers $10 more a month for access. Would you be in support of that?

Actually yes.
You’re paying for what you want.
That’s exactly like cable. You can pay for certain packages that include the channels you want.

[Greenie]

No.

If you NEED certain platforms to make your living and it’s not provided or offered in you area you should move to a place that gives you those things. People move all the time for work purposes.

The internet is mostly used for entertainment purposes or general service for the average person. Most people are more concerned with how they will entertain themselves or get stuff without leaving home over how they will put food on the table. When it comes to that I really don’t care about NN.

That argument fails based on the person's job. I am a software tester who focuses on mainframe/web applications. There is no way for me to do my work without internet access.

When I work from home, it is required for me to use VPN to access the private network of my organization. So no, the internet is not mostly used for entertainment purposes. Some people need the internet to put food on their table.

[CowboyBebop]

Go home Ajit Pai. You’re drunk.

[omerome]

Actually yes.
You’re paying for what you want.
That’s exactly like cable. You can pay for certain packages that include the channels you want.

But I am already paying for access and they want me to pay more for access? No, that's ridiculous. What's next? Are cell phones going the same way? Let's say you have 12GB of data per month, but you can't access any sites unless you pay AT&T more money.

There is no package from cable companies that offer the channels I want because I don't want any. They bundle in channels I don't want all the time to justify their prices. They have refused to do the "choose your own channel" plan for years because of this reason. You know why? Because most people would cut the cord.

[Greenie]

You have the strangest arguments against net neutrality. I could see someone arguing against it because it will increase competition, but you think it will be a positive thing if people have to move in order to have internet access? How would that be good for people or the country? I guess your dream is to have people go to the library so they can learn the Dewey Decimal System.

No.

If you NEED certain platforms to make your living and it’s not provided or offered in you area you should move to a place that gives you those things. People move all the time for work purposes.

The internet is mostly used for entertainment purposes or general service for the average person. Most people are more concerned with how they will entertain themselves or get stuff without leaving home over how they will put food on the table. When it comes to that I really don’t care about NN.

Not everyone can afford convenience like you. I’ll tell my students that they need the time to get to a library inbetween school and work

Just like everyone can’t afford a car. A house. To even go to school. Hell, everyone can’t afford to go to a NBA game.

Entertainment and convenience will cost money until the end of time. Some can afford more of it than others. **** not fair but I was taught that’s life.

[Jables120]

No, you’ve embarrassed yourself. You want something for nothing. You want **** your way or no way.

If you’re so hung up on google and your ISP doesn’t carry it. Either switch to an ISP that does or move to an area that has an ISP that does. People move for work all of the time. Adjust or get left behind.

You have the strangest arguments against net neutrality. I could see someone arguing against it because it will increase competition, but you think it will be a positive thing if people have to move in order to have internet access? How would that be good for people or the country? I guess your dream is to have people go to the library so they can learn the Dewey Decimal System.

No.

If you NEED certain platforms to make your living and it’s not provided or offered in you area you should move to a place that gives you those things. People move all the time for work purposes.

The internet is mostly used for entertainment purposes or general service for the average person. Most people are more concerned with how they will entertain themselves or get stuff without leaving home over how they will put food on the table. When it comes to that I really don’t care about NN.

So then what is the benefit of repealing net neutrality? Most people that argue against it say that the ISPs won't limit others' content. You are saying that they will and that you would be fine with it? Limiting people's use of the internet and forcing them to move to use it would put us at a large disadvantage compared to other countries.

[Greenie]

Actually yes.
You’re paying for what you want.
That’s exactly like cable. You can pay for certain packages that include the channels you want.

But I am already paying for access and they want me to pay more for access? No, that's ridiculous. What's next? Are cell phones going the same way? Let's say you have 12GB of data per month, but you can't access any sites unless you pay AT&T more money.

There is no package from cable companies that offer the channels I want because I don't want any. They bundle in channels I don't want all the time to justify their prices. They have refused to do the "choose your own channel" plan for years because of this reason. You know why? Because most people would cut the cord.

If you go over you data you can’t unless you pay for more data.

Cable is exactly like that. I pay a cable bill every month to have basic access. If I want Showtime or HBO it’s more. You want NBA TV? It’s more. It’s been that way for years.

[Greenie]

You have the strangest arguments against net neutrality. I could see someone arguing against it because it will increase competition, but you think it will be a positive thing if people have to move in order to have internet access? How would that be good for people or the country? I guess your dream is to have people go to the library so they can learn the Dewey Decimal System.

No.

If you NEED certain platforms to make your living and it’s not provided or offered in you area you should move to a place that gives you those things. People move all the time for work purposes.

The internet is mostly used for entertainment purposes or general service for the average person. Most people are more concerned with how they will entertain themselves or get stuff without leaving home over how they will put food on the table. When it comes to that I really don’t care about NN.

So then what is the benefit of repealing net neutrality? Most people that argue against it say that the ISPs won't limit others' content. You are saying that they will and that you would be fine with it? Limiting people's use of the internet and forcing them to move to use it would put us at a large disadvantage compared to other countries.

Let me ask this.

What was the actual benefit of NN?

[omerome]

Actually yes.
You’re paying for what you want.
That’s exactly like cable. You can pay for certain packages that include the channels you want.

But I am already paying for access and they want me to pay more for access? No, that's ridiculous. What's next? Are cell phones going the same way? Let's say you have 12GB of data per month, but you can't access any sites unless you pay AT&T more money.

There is no package from cable companies that offer the channels I want because I don't want any. They bundle in channels I don't want all the time to justify their prices. They have refused to do the "choose your own channel" plan for years because of this reason. You know why? Because most people would cut the cord.

If you go over you data you can’t unless you pay for more data.

Cable is exactly like that. I pay a cable bill every month to have basic access. If I want Showtime or HBO it’s more. You want NBA TV? It’s more. It’s been that way for years.

I am talking about ALL access. Comcast would basically tell you, you can access "this site", but not "this site". Oh, we noticed that you like "this site" a lot, so we're going to charge you more money or severely slow down your speeds now. They would essentially be the gatekeepers of content.

[omerome]

No.

If you NEED certain platforms to make your living and it’s not provided or offered in you area you should move to a place that gives you those things. People move all the time for work purposes.

The internet is mostly used for entertainment purposes or general service for the average person. Most people are more concerned with how they will entertain themselves or get stuff without leaving home over how they will put food on the table. When it comes to that I really don’t care about NN.

So then what is the benefit of repealing net neutrality? Most people that argue against it say that the ISPs won't limit others' content. You are saying that they will and that you would be fine with it? Limiting people's use of the internet and forcing them to move to use it would put us at a large disadvantage compared to other countries.

Let me ask this.

What was the actual benefit of NN?

Net neutrality can be broadly defined as the concept of an open internet, where no websites or services are prioritised over any other, and nothing legal is blocked. That means users have unfettered access to any legal website they can imagine, and that a transatlantic Skype chat with a friend shouldn't stop your email from loading.

Freedom of expression

As long as it's legal, any blog or website or news service is available online under the concept of net neutrality. Otherwise, internet service providers could in theory block access to content they don't want you to see, like a rival video streaming site or another site that competes with their own interests, or even content they deem as unsuitable. Net neutrality lets all the many, diverse people in the world have a voice online, for better or worse.

Promotes innovation and competition

An open internet ensures that larger companies don't have yet another advantage over a tiny startup. It's a level playing field on the internet, where everything is delivered as fast as possible to the end user.

Unfettered access

Google can't pay for faster access to their websites, and a tiny video streaming service should in theory be as speedy and glitch-free as Netflix. Net neutrality squashes the potential for internet fast lanes, where internet service providers can charge content creators for enough bandwidth to deliver their service properly.

It also prevents the possibility of providers charging end users an extra fee to access vital services, like online banking or email, or entertainment platforms like gaming networks (or of the owners of these services from passing their costs onto end users).

Source: http://www.itpro.co.uk/strategy/28115/the-pros-and-cons-of-net-neutrality

[Greenie]

But I am already paying for access and they want me to pay more for access? No, that's ridiculous. What's next? Are cell phones going the same way? Let's say you have 12GB of data per month, but you can't access any sites unless you pay AT&T more money.

There is no package from cable companies that offer the channels I want because I don't want any. They bundle in channels I don't want all the time to justify their prices. They have refused to do the "choose your own channel" plan for years because of this reason. You know why? Because most people would cut the cord.

If you go over you data you can’t unless you pay for more data.

Cable is exactly like that. I pay a cable bill every month to have basic access. If I want Showtime or HBO it’s more. You want NBA TV? It’s more. It’s been that way for years.

I am talking about ALL access. Comcast would basically tell you, you can access "this site", but not "this site". Oh, we noticed that you like "this site" a lot, so we're going to charge you more money or severely slow down your speeds now. They would essentially be the gatekeepers of content.

So this was all happening before NN happened?