Title II is Not the Net Neutrality You’re Looking For

[everettT]

And another interesting one

http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/13/net-neutrality-is-a-sham-that-protects-silicon-valley-robber-barons/

 

[everettT]

And now this
http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/14/security-cuts-fcc-chair-ajit-pais-speech-short-for-bomb-threat/
...

 

[Ponzio]

Well I guess the party is over. Enjoy it while it lasts folks. Netflix, Hulu, Amazon streaming will inexorably raise their prices since all the big broadband providers will start charging more to use their transmission highways. Oh you’ll have a choice, if that’s how you perceive it, a “slow” lane and a “fast” lane.

You think they’re gonna eat the price increase? Yeah, right. Ninja please! And we sat there like schlubs, like a deer caught in the headlights, and did nothing.

I guess my father was right when he said, thank god for stupid people son, they make us rich.

 

[TheWarrior]

https://www.wired.com/story/after-fcc-abandons-net-neutrality-states-take-up-the-fight/

Nothing is over!

 

[Ponzio]

https://www.wired.com/story/after-fcc-abandons-net-neutrality-states-take-up-the-fight/

Nothing is over!

hope you're right

 

[TheWarrior]

hope you're right

I knew I should've stocked up on hard drives on Black Friday!

 

[psbfan9]

https://www.wired.com/story/after-fcc-abandons-net-neutrality-states-take-up-the-fight/

Nothing is over!

"Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!"

Daily Liar.

https://www.snopes.com/tag/daily-caller/

 

[Ponzio]

I knew I should've stocked up on hard drives on Black Friday!

From the FWIW department. I just picked up a WD Easy Store 8TB 3.0 USB external hard drive for $150 this morning on the Best Buy web site. Added bonus, the internal HD is WD's Red Drive model, a real tank. merry x-mas to me

 

[KenM10759]

This is like telling the electric power company it's OK to give me different rates for my Whirlpool washing machine and my General Electric refrigerator.

 

[pewternhrata]

 

[pewternhrata]

This is like telling the electric power company it's OK to give me different rates for my Whirlpool washing machine and my General Electric refrigerator.

It would be more like the company that owns the power lines could charge the electric company different prices depending on power consumption. The scare tactic behind it is, the electric company will trickle down those extra charges to the consumer. Reality is, the electric company already charges you bs fees, as well as profits off your consumer data without your consent.

 

[TheWarrior]

It would be more like the company that owns the power lines could charge the electric company different prices depending on power consumption. The scare tactic behind it is, the electric company will trickle down those extra charges to the consumer. Reality is, the electric company already charges you bs fees, as well as profits off your consumer data without your consent.

I'm sorry, but are you suggesting that ending net neutrality protections is no different than not having them at all because of those 'fees'?

 

[everettT]

I think those that are / were in favor of the "net neutrality" should look at the companies that benefited the most, that were exceptions to the rules as they were written. The name was an easy sell, but the law wasn't as the name implied. I'm no fan of any government oversight, especially ones that excluded the biggest tech companies. I'm sure Eric Schmidt wasn't visiting the White House those hundreds of times to discuss green energy. This subject shouldn't be a partisan division .

 

[pewternhrata]

I'm sorry, but are you suggesting that ending net neutrality protections is no different than not having them at all because of those 'fees'?

I'm 50 50 on the issue, I have not heard of anything on either side to sway me. Most I see is people concerned with rates skyrocketing (fees either way will always be a 'thing') or general misinformed ignorant comments (not that I think you fall into that category what so ever) the only issue i see, in my opinion, is that the internet was working before net neutrality was made up to be something greater than it needed to be, the botched attempt to grant one side (content providers) more leverage over isps. Now the isps will have the upper hand. How will that impact my internet access? I honestly don't know, but I do know the shady business practices will continue regardless and we as consumers will always have one choice moving forward, to continue to see increased rates the same as any we do in any industry.

 

[TheWarrior]

I think those that are / were in favor of the "net neutrality" should look at the companies that benefited the most, that were exceptions to the rules as they were written.

Would you please elaborate?

I'm 50 50 on the issue, I have not heard of anything on either side to sway me. Most I see is people concerned with rates skyrocketing (fees either way will always be a 'thing') or general misinformed ignorant comments (not that I think you fall into that category what so ever) the only issue i see, in my opinion, is that the internet was working before net neutrality was made up to be something greater than it needed to be, the botched attempt to grant one side (content providers) more leverage over isps. Now the isps will have the upper hand. How will that impact my internet access? I honestly don't know, but I do know the shady business practices will continue regardless and we as consumers will always have one choice moving forward, to continue to see increased rates the same as any we do in any industry.

I see, and thank you for your clarification. My primary concern is giving anyone the 'upper hand' in terms of ability to alter access to the internet, for the consumer, other than, the consumer.

Given that the FCC Chair was chosen by the same President who is also currently muzzling EPA scientists (which also limits its ability to give grants to students for research) and just released a new set of approved 'words' for the CDC, I don't think there is any question that this move was NOT intended to benefit us, the consumers, in any way shape or form.

 

[everettT]

Would you please elaborate?.

Under title 2 ISP providers were to be regulated, not Google, Facebook, Amazon etc. These edge providers are free to manipulate content, searches, and ad placement. There is nothing neutral about that.

The one question that many can't or won't answer is Was the Internet not open and neutral for the last 25 years? Content providers like Netflix championed net neutrality with claims that they couldn't provide their service at the same prices if it wasn't in place, however that seems more politically motivated than fact since Netflix's costs are dominated by media licensing fees and production costs, not communication fees.

 

[pewternhrata]

Under title 2 ISP providers were to be regulated, not Google, Facebook, Amazon etc. These edge providers are free to manipulate content, searches, and ad placement. There is nothing neutral about that.

The one question that many can't or won't answer is Was the Internet not open and neutral for the last 25 years? Content providers like Netflix championed net neutrality with claims that they couldn't provide their service at the same prices if it wasn't in place, however that seems more politically motivated than fact since Netflix's costs are dominated by media licensing fees and production costs, not communication fees.

Probably one of the best responses I've read on the subject.

 

[KenM10759]

Under title 2 ISP providers were to be regulated, not Google, Facebook, Amazon etc. These edge providers are free to manipulate content, searches, and ad placement. There is nothing neutral about that.

The one question that many can't or won't answer is Was the Internet not open and neutral for the last 25 years? Content providers like Netflix championed net neutrality with claims that they couldn't provide their service at the same prices if it wasn't in place, however that seems more politically motivated than fact since Netflix's costs are dominated by media licensing fees and production costs, not communication fees.

True that Netflix's (and other streaming services) costs are primarily licensing fees, this stripping away of rules will now allow an ISP to control the speed and/or access to those services. They "promise" not to do that, but don't count on it. As Comcast's cable TV subscriber base continues to shrink, they and other cable TV providers will want to get paid more by either the streaming services or the consumers for the bandwidth needed to support the stream.

 

[everettT]

True that Netflix's (and other streaming services) costs are primarily licensing fees, this stripping away of rules will now allow an ISP to control the speed and/or access to those services. They "promise" not to do that, but don't count on it. As Comcast's cable TV subscriber base continues to shrink, they and other cable TV providers will want to get paid more by either the streaming services or the consumers for the bandwidth needed to support the stream.

There are laws in place already that prevent ISPs from doing this; the Sherman Act, FTC Act and the Clayton Act.
One point I was making above is that there wasn't a problem before Net Neutrality since laws were already in place. NN just isn't necessary, except to exempt those large edge providers. You can't just regulate part of the Internet and leave some exempt.

 

[pewternhrata]

True that Netflix's (and other streaming services) costs are primarily licensing fees, this stripping away of rules will now allow an ISP to control the speed and/or access to those services. They "promise" not to do that, but don't count on it. As Comcast's cable TV subscriber base continues to shrink, they and other cable TV providers will want to get paid more by either the streaming services or the consumers for the bandwidth needed to support the stream.

I have 100mbps, I rarely see anything over 30 while downloading on the Xbox one, whose limiting my connection? Microsoft or my isp? Iirc Netflix got caught advertising hd content yet they were not allowing the bandwidth necessary for true hd. It's a loss at the consumer level either way. Net neutrality didn't do a damn thing for us, except let us pay for high speed internet without the ability to utilize 100% of what we were paying for.