Posted on 12/14/2017 10:36:00 AM PST by ColdOne
The Federal Communications Commission voted Thursday to repeal net neutrality rules, over the objection of Democrats in Congress, Internet activists and online companies.
FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, Commissioner Michael O’Rielly, and Commissioner Brendan Carr, all Republicans, supported the proposed rollback of the Obama-era rules. Democratic Commissioners Mignon Clyburn and Jessica Rosenworcel opposed the change.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
No. They would not. They don’t see the purpose in a market place and don’t value freedom like life itself.
Top down structures never work well. Flat diversified structures are efficient, honest and effective.
Freedom Works.
The left is all about subjection and tyranny.
Maybe, maybe not, but the door to that has been opened. Should ISPs decide to make you pay for content (reading FR for example) there is nothing to stop them now that NN has been repealed.
The internet is now one big cable network. Want to get netflix or rededt or Drudge? Pick the plan that is right for you, only 35 bucks a month.
Got a website you want people to see? That's an extra $50/month for every ISP. You have to pay to play.
So the ISP may not be willing to sell you the bandwidth you need. OK so far.
Net Neutrality tells them that, even if they WANT to provide you the option to pay more to have higher QoS (Quality of Service) for your connections, they’re not allowed to do so.
Nothing in nn limits the bandwidth an ISP can sell to a customer.
Nothing.
Further, aside from being wrong this has nothing to do with the initial problem, which is the ISP being unwilling to sell you the bandwidth you need.
... by having language in there that incites lawmakers to classify Internet access as a utility, it ENSURES that the ISP’s never have to compete with one another...
Absolute nonsense and obviously untrue. We've had nn rules for a couple of years now and there's more competition than ever.
Your friend may be an expert on the technology of the internet but he has no clue on the business side.
That is where it ends. Yep.
So can I, and living where I choose to (a rural part of upstate NY), I have one, count 'em, ONE useful Internet Service Provider available (Frontier Communications). I am completely at their mercy, because the other so-called alternatives are unacceptably slow (dial-up) or effectively half-duplex (satellite). I do considerable remote work for my employer and the minimum I need is what I currently have over bonded DSL: 25Mbps down, 1Mbps up, with minimal delay. I don't upload that much material remotely, but I have to do remote video conferencing, etc.
I'll be interested to see what the variable rates become, for the various domains I have to work with. Might not be pretty.
OTOH, I abhor government regulations of businesses whose profit interest coincides with useful innovation and technological development. So if the loss of NN means ultimately I'll have more bandwidth, great. But if it means I can't work remotely, I'm totally screwed.
Who really can know what any of this means, NEUTRALITY SCHMALITY, the ISP’s are big box monopolies and will do as they please, the politicians will help them, and we will take whatever they give us
I know that if Mobama, Soreass, Fakebook, and Gargle are for it, it ain’t good, period.
Its the new Fairness Doctrine
At the _Donald at Reddit they are wildly celebrating the end of NN.
All brought to you by the Ministry of Truth.
It empowers fed bureaucraps. Gives them to path to smother and sensor all coms.
The nn rules basically say it's up to the user to decide what content he wants to call up on the internet provided he's willing to pay for the bandwidth, and the ISP can't charge differently for the same content from different providers.
I have no problem with the ISP’s having different tiers of service and charging appropriately for speed or even on data limits on streaming or uploading absent restrictions on the content provider. But like you said, they shouldn’t be allowed to slow down content based on who they want to be winners and losers based on their ownership or shared ownership. But it isn’t just movie streaming services.
To put it another way, the Huffington Post is owned by Oath Inc. which is a subsidiary of Verizon Communications. So let’s say in the area where I live the only ISP providing high speed internet is Verizon, I’m not talking cellular service, but Fios.
Let’s say that Verizon allows their Fios subscribers to access Huffington Post at the highest speed at which you have subscribed and paid for, the pages and content load at lighting speed. But let’s say you like going to Breitbart instead. But since Verizon sees Breitbart as a competitor to Huffington Post which it owns it and perhaps even doesn’t like the content on Breitbart, they throttle it, meaning when you try to access Breitbart, the pages are painfully slow in loading, if they even load at all.
That is what I understood that nn would, at least in theory prevent.
#165 - lol...technically correct. Heck, babies are given iPads as “binkies” now.
Google, the robber barons of personal privacy, are not going to like this.
Thank you. We disagree on some things, but not this. You
My kids are freaking out.
I told them the Internet was just fine before net neutrality and will be just fine after net neutrality.
They started talking about cost.
I told them what we’re already paying Verizon.
At that point they told me I just “don’t understand”
Lol!
Yep, back in the day when the Obama/ Clinton crime families ran it all and looted millions. Times are changing.
That is one smart cat
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.