Net neutrality gone

[Hiricine]

And how do you suppose a "mom and Pop" isp would go about breaking into the market where there is only one or two providers atm? What infrastructure would they use? The one that the current providers own? Or do you think they would lay down their own infrastructure? Lol really.

Well maybe someone will invent a new infrastructure, Elon Musk was already looking into global satellite internet, and there really isn't much incentive for new companies to come and lay down line the way things are. If a competitor needs to provide high speed internet to every website available, NN creates a much higher bar to entry. New lines could create some great high speed opportunities as well, the internet lines in the US are terribly old, and if you create a system that completely gets rid of newcomers ability to enter you'll have to sit around for decades praying the existing ISPs upgrade the service out of the goodness of their hearts.

Not to mention there are plenty of people who don't stream Netflix in HD between the hours of 5-9 pm that would be perfectly willing to pay less and get throttled at those times.

[Najnaj]

Net Neutrality is still here, in 95% of the world. What is going is the US dominance on servers.

[Draco-Onis]

Well maybe someone will invent a new infrastructure, Elon Musk was already looking into global satellite internet, and there really isn't much incentive for new companies to come and lay down line the way things are. If a competitor needs to provide high speed internet to every website available, NN creates a much higher bar to entry. New lines could create some great high speed opportunities as well, the internet lines in the US are terribly old, and if you create a system that completely gets rid of newcomers ability to enter you'll have to sit around for decades praying the existing ISPs upgrade the service out of the goodness of their hearts.

Not to mention there are plenty of people who don't stream Netflix in HD between the hours of 5-9 pm that would be perfectly willing to pay less and get throttled at those times.

oh yes the giant wall of state and federal regulations that have stopped even google fiber going froward are going to magically vanish

NN has nothing to do with barriers of entry stop repeating lines from telecom companies, they sue the crap out of anyone who tries to touch their monopolies.

- - - Updated - - -

I like the idea of being able to access any website i choose to, but at the end of the day, it's the ISP's company. You don't have a right to dictate how said ISP runs their company. Government shouldn't be getting involved in things like that. Like I said, in 2008, I wasn't paying any extra to access Google and Amazon at the same time, so i highly doubt I will now. That being said, i'd compare it more to cellphone plans. Remember when all the big networks did away with unlimited plans? Now at least 2 companies have brought it back because people started using other networks. Even if ISPs do start charging more to access different websites, it won't last, because people will protest against said ISP. We don't need more government regulations.

The reason you weren't paying extra was because comcast, verizon, at&t were in court fighting with the FCC to screw you that is why net neutrality was put in place. The legal cases are on the net if you are curious it clearly states their intentions. Also cell phone companies are far more regulated than your cable companies they are forced to compete for your business. You clearly need to research the issue more.

[Cerus]

Except data restricted plans and mobile internet plans with limited monthly transfer rates that are made exactly for the users who are just checking their news and email existed already. Now you will have to pay extra for whatever they claim you should. Id restrict email and news first. Seems the most important to you so you would pay more for it

See you dont understand business and you dont understand what you are talking about regarding internet packages. You proppably dont understand how much bandwith you consume every month either and youl be supprised when your "i cant possibly use more than 20gb a month" theory falls apart.

Not to mention that you are a consumer who reacts with joy when told he is going to have to pay more.
And a citizen who reacts with joy when told that news hes acces to news and information may be manipulated via paywalls decided by the monopolist isp's.

Oh please. I’ve been using the internet long before your mother decided not to swallow you. You little snowflakes think the sky is falling because you’ve only been using the net since NN came to be. Once again - the internet got along just fine without the FCC for decades. I know this because I was there before it was even a thing and have used it ever since.

You’re just mad that you won’t be able to use 10x as much bandwidth downloading via P2P and streaming HD 24/7 without paying your fair share. The fact that you think it means restrictions on what you can even read shows your total lack of intelligence and immaturity.

Get a clue.

[Yunru]

[Draco-Onis]

Oh please. I’ve been using the internet long before your mother decided not to swallow you. You little snowflakes think the sky is falling because you’ve only been using the net since NN came to be. Once again - the internet got along just fine without the FCC for decades. I know this because I was there before it was even a thing and have used it ever since.

You’re just mad that you won’t be able to use 10x as much bandwidth downloading via P2P and streaming HD 24/7 without paying your fair share. The fact that you think it means restrictions on what you can even read shows your total lack of intelligence and immaturity.

Get a clue.

So you think a 2 year old can use a computer and type? I won't bother responding to the rest because it is just as idiotic and shows a lack of understanding of how the internet works or the court cases fought over the years since dial up.

[Cerus]

Ugh, ISPs deliver service to you through cables that where paid for by tax payers so ugh yea, we kind of do.

Educate yourself on the matter.

Lines are paid for by the companies that own them. That’s why they don’t expand much into rural areas. My local cable is spending hundreds of millions to bring in gigabit service. The taxpayers have nothing to do with it.

[gilfanon]

Oh please. I’ve been using the internet long before your mother decided not to swallow you. You little snowflakes think the sky is falling because you’ve only been using the net since NN came to be. Once again - the internet got along just fine without the FCC for decades. I know this because I was there before it was even a thing and have used it ever since.

You’re just mad that you won’t be able to use 10x as much bandwidth downloading via P2P and streaming HD 24/7 without paying your fair share. The fact that you think it means restrictions on what you can even read shows your total lack of intelligence and immaturity.

Get a clue.

I've been using the internet since I was in High School - I'm 42 now - and I think killing net neutrality is a terrible idea. Oh look, the length of time someone has been using the internet has literally f-all relevance in this debate!

Your second paragraph is equally irrelevant. If ISPs wanted to charge more for people who used 10x as much bandwidth I'd have no problem whatsoever with that - like other utilities (gas, electricity etc), if you use more of it, you should pay more. What I have an issue with is with an ISP saying - Service X (owned by ISP) will stream at broadband speed through your standard package, but Service Y, the service I prefer (and one not owned by the ISP) will stream at 64k modem speed unless you subscribe to extra bundle XYZ for an extra 20 bucks a month. And by the way, forget about switching ISP and therefore getting market forces to take care of things, because you live in rural Arizona and the only provider is us, so pay up sucker!

[Adam Jensen]

And leftists riot over Trump winning but sit and cry on social media when this passes.

Trump winning . . . what exactly?

Because he hasn't accomplished much since the election.

[Cerus]

So you think a 2 year old can use a computer and type? I won't bother responding to the rest because it is just as idiotic and shows a lack of understanding of how the internet works or the court cases fought over the years since dial up.

Obviously you don’t have kids or you’d know the answer to that.

Are going to gloss over the fact that under NN, broadband spending decreased by nearly $4b? I thought NN was supposed to encourage expansion and spending.... I imagine so since you've already done so regarding the internet’s trouble free existence for two decades before NN. They didn’t charge you a google or amazon fee before and they won’t now. The way the interent works hasn’t changed since it’s inception. Costs didn’t triple when the speeds skyrocketed either.

If you honestly think the gov knows what they’re doing and won’t screw up the free internet then move somewhere with like minded libtards. Enjoy your hidden fees and taxes on your internet use.

[Draco-Onis]

Obviously you don’t have kids or you’d know the answer to that.

Are going to gloss over the fact that under NN, broadband spending decreased by nearly $4b? I thought NN was supposed to encourage expansion and spending.

Actually I do have kids try again, you miss the part where companies spend money on M&A which decreased the money spend on broadband. They acquired it through mergers versus building it out for example AT&T and Time Warner. Comcast the biggest opponent of net neutrality is a perfect example of the real picture.

Comcast, the nation’s largest internet provider, increased its capital expenditures— spending on buildings, equipment, transmission lines and the like—for cable communications by about 13 percent in 2015, and by another 8.6 percent in 2016, to a total of $7.6 billion. Those numbers include Comcast’s investments to deliver TV programming, making it hard to tell how much was spent on internet infrastructure. However, in Security Exchange Commission filings, and calls with investors, company executives cited network upgrades to deliver faster internet service, as well as the rollout of a new TV service.

The increased investment was in line with what Comcast told investors after the FCC passed its new rules, which classified internet service providers as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act. "It really hasn't affected the way we have been doing our business or will do our business," Comcast Cable’s then-CEO Neil Smit told investors in May 2015. "And while we don't necessarily agree with the Title II implementation, we conduct our business the same we always have."

[Cerus]

I've been using the internet since I was in High School - I'm 42 now - and I think killing net neutrality is a terrible idea. Oh look, the length of time someone has been using the internet has literally f-all relevance in this debate!

Your second paragraph is equally irrelevant. If ISPs wanted to charge more for people who used 10x as much bandwidth I'd have no problem whatsoever with that - like other utilities (gas, electricity etc), if you use more of it, you should pay more. What I have an issue with is with an ISP saying - Service X (owned by ISP) will stream at broadband speed through your standard package, but Service Y, the service I prefer (and one not owned by the ISP) will stream at 64k modem speed unless you subscribe to extra bundle XYZ for an extra 20 bucks a month. And by the way, forget about switching ISP and therefore getting market forces to take care of things, because you live in rural Arizona and the only provider is us, so pay up sucker!

The internet never worked like that before this NN nonsense. And length of time has plenty do with it. NN supporters imply that the internet was a costly mess before it passed when they weren’t even born when it took off. Actual experience trumps what some liberal website tells them to think. The speeds I paid for are the speeds I got whether I was loading a text website, watching a video or downloading a game. My access wasn’t restricted in any way for over 20 years.

And that’s different than how it’s been the last two years how? My area has three choices for internet. Satellite (2 choices) DSL and cable (1 choice each) if you arent too rural. It’s been that way forever in every area I’ve lived in.

NN didn’t stimulate expansion. It didn’t stimulate competition. It didn’t stimulate anything and spending dropped almost $4b in the two years it’s been in effect.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually I do have kids try again, you miss the part where companies spend money on M&A which decreased the money spend on broadband. They acquired it through mergers versus building it out for example AT&T and Time Warner. Comcast the biggest opponent of net neutrality is a perfect example of the real picture.

Fact check man. Between the dozen or so major providers, spending decreased by $4b. Your own quote even states that it can’t determine what % was actually spent on interent. I guarantee you it was very little.

[McFuu]

I don't think this is going to amount to anything. The loss of NN hurts companies more than it hurts consumers, and I don't see Google, Amazon, Netflix, etc out in congress stamping their feet about what is going to turn into profit loss for them, if this were a sky is falling situation.

[Deleted]

The internet never worked like that before this NN nonsense.

Your argument rests entirely on the fact that the Internet pre-NN is the same as it is post-NN.

The type of services and level of service that are claimed to be going to be affected by the loss of NN just didn't exist "back in your day", so your argument loses all weight. In actual fact, if the doomsayers are proven correct, you may actually end up with Internet the way you remember it, just without all of the new stuff that has been added since.

The decisions has been made now so there is little point people going all chicken little now. If they want the power to do something about this they are going to have to wait for the ISP to actually go though with what they claim will happen.

[tankbug]

The person responsible for the repeal was appointed by Obama. Not Trump. Our statement for NN hold more value when we actually use facts.

I also think people should fact check on how many countries actually have NN laws. Not many do, and if you're not in the USA there is a high chance you already live/lived in a country that didn't have them.

No, Trump made him chairman of the FCC. The problem is also that the republican government will never try to stop businesses from exploiting the people, something that would be different if Trump wasn't elected.
NN regulations may not be widespread, but it's an evolutionary process that will happen along side ISPs changing business models. They are always working towards getting as much money as possible, and so should the government continue to make sure that the people are not getting exploited. We may have not made needed the legislation 10 years ago, but things are different now.

[Draco-Onis]

Fact check man. Between the dozen or so major providers, spending decreased by $4b. Your own quote even states that it can’t determine what % was actually spent on interent. I guarantee you it was very little.

Fact check read their own statements it had no effect, AT&T bought direct TV, Time Warner got Charter. You have no idea what you are talking about, these monopolies are expanding their network by getting bigger they had no need to increase spending. You should try reading their call to investors sometime, of course I am assuming you can understand basic concepts of scale and finance.

[Toronto]

I hope Peter Thiel is right.

[Trassk]

I don't think this is going to amount to anything. The loss of NN hurts companies more than it hurts consumers, and I don't see Google, Amazon, Netflix, etc out in congress stamping their feet about what is going to turn into profit loss for them, if this were a sky is falling situation.

of course they won't because it won't be a profit loss for them, big business gains profit from this from the consumer for a service that was free to use before, so why would they try to stamp that out?

[Shaqur]

Trump winning . . . what exactly?

Because he hasn't accomplished much since the election.

http://www.wnd.com/2017/11/4621979/

[Orlong]

Seems like the internet was just as free and open before the Obama administration made the net neutrality law as it was after. The only net neutrality law I would support is a single line law stating that all internet traffic must be treated the same. The current net neutrality law is so full of government control, overregulation, and unnecessary bullshit, it deserves to go down in flames. In fact 90% of it has nothing to do with net neutrality, much like most laws