Net Neutrality moved to trash
 

http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/14/tech...ner/index.html

And then it will be on to the courts:

https://www.wired.com/story/after-fc...urts-congress/

One thing I'm confused about.. doing some searches, I see old posts from folks attacking Obama for wanting to get rid of Net Neutrality.. like these:

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...d.php?t=113005

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...d.php?t=120647

But in actuality Obama and the FCC wrote rules to PROTECT net neutrality, which are now being gutted by Trump?

Right?

The problem is that both sides of the issue have benefits for the everyday user. You lose in one area, but you gain in another depending on which type of user you are.

I disagree with what they are going to change.....because I think it’s a problem that doesn’t need fixed, for right now. But eventually as we move to a more heavy daily usage, streaming etc, you are going to have to move to a more sliced up Network with higher fees. Bandwidth will soon be treated like a commodity.

As usual, the haves will be able to pay more. And get more.

But! There is some new tech coming down the road that’s going to Cause serious change. Much faster and cheaper ways to move data are on the horizon. The problem will be who owns the tech. Phone companies will always be the bad guys and we were warned about this throughout the 80s and 90s. They will either fight against or buyout the new technology. Which is unclear at the moment.

This repeal is good because it tempers the increasing power of cess pools such as Facebook, Twitter, Amazon and the entire Google complex.

Why should these Left Tech coalition (a George Soros-funded enterprise) of companies -- who wrote the law FCC 15-24 Report and Order on Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and Order in the Matter of Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet... yikes, better known as Net Neutrality basically have unfetted control of the Internet?

The law stated that the FCC can pick and choose whom they could regulate vigorously and for whom to give a free pass.

The now old law forced only the ISPs to abide by the Net Neutrality Law in 2015, heavily written by the Google totalitarians, and not the ISPs. Anyone paying even a passing interest knows how the likes of Facebook, Twitter, Google simply hate free speech and sought to eliminate libertarian and conservative points of view from their ecosystem.

... not the ISPs

Make that content providers.

:lol::lol::lol:

Data is data.

How many others are there? ;)

It is like this, the issue changes over time, and the reg change over time, and what is said and what is passed is not always the same thing.
Like the ACA.

The internet should be treated like a public utility and fairly prices unlimited data made available to all. No one company should be making money off the internet.

Why should I pay for unlimited data if I don't want or need it? E-mail and streaming video are data. If all I want is e-mail and the ability to read articles on the net, why should I pay for the ability to stream movies?

Net neutrality forbids unbundling, or charging a premium fee for priority routing of streaming video or similar applications.

Innovation is driven by making money. Competition is driven by the ability to offer new products and services.

Net neutrality is a solution in search of a problem. It was promoted as a way to prevent anti-competitive practices, but there is no evidence of significant problems pre-neutrality. Also, the FTC was in place and experienced with dealing with such problems. Net neutrality took anti-competitive practices away from FTC jurisdiction and moved it to the FCC.

I'm talking a public utility, like running water.
You pay for what you use, but you have no limit on how much you use.

When my son visits he likes to watch HULU.
For a long time HULU worked well with what AT&T was selling as it's fastest internet service.

Then AT&T came up with an even faster service for more money.
Well guess what, HULU began to freeze with the service that used to be fast enough.

Because of the freezes I had to pay more for the faster AT&T service, now HULU works fine.

Is Net Neutrality supposed to be better for the Content Makers/Owners, the Service Providers or the end Users/Customers?

I don't know how I've benefited because of Net Neutrality, but then I don't understand who Net Neutrality is for. What I do know is that I am paying more for internet service.

You should charge your son for watching HULU when he comes to visit.No freeloaders. :D

According to sound bytes I heard from liberal politicians, NN, apparently, was created for women and the airhead pols complained and whined that if NN was taken away women wouldn't know where to get abortions. (I'm serious...I'm not making this up.)

AT&T as a data stream through your nearest cell phone tower or AT&T as a internet provider through a DSL connection?

It matters as net neutrality never applied to the telecoms providing cell service. What you describe sounds a lot like throttling over a cell connection.

And that's what's enabled now for everyone with a DSL or Cable connection.

This isn't going to hurt any company with scale. Netflix, Amazon, Facebook and any other company that is familiar will pay whatever it costs to get in the fast lane. It may set up some occasions where negotiations get stuck and you can't get a decent connection on Netflix for a week the same way channels might disappear on a cable provider while they negotiate carrying costs.

Who is hurt is some company you will never hear of because instead of becoming the next Amazon or Netflix that we would be talking about in 10 years, they will be choked off in the slow lane.

Big existing companies are winners. Future choices are a loser. The real problem is that the future has a crappy lobbyist.

Thanks for the info, I had a cable connection and had to upgrade to Fiber Optic.

No one says you shouldn't be charged based on consumption. But data is data is data. Its measured in bytes not by the application or website you are using it through.

I responded the way I did to reckless because this is the antithesis to free speech and market.

This is not really a "conservative vs. liberal" issue.

People do not seem to see the potential doom for the way it is now.

Draw a parallel between the internet and horse racing.

Consider a track (or worse, a coalition of tracks) who decide that a particular ADW needs to pay more for their signal. ExpressBet gets CD but BetAmerica doesn't, unless they pay more for it.

So, if you are not with a big outfit that has a lot of handle, you do not get CD.

The possibility exists that at some time in the future only big players will be allowed to have websites. That means the little guy (or start up) has got to pony up big bucks to get even standing room at an already crowded table.

Do you watch NetFlix? Expect the cost to be $25 per month instead of the $12 it is now.

Anything that uses big bandwidth will cost more. If it is currently free and it uses a lot of bandwidth, it will cost something.

Amazon will wind up with YOUR internet provider wanting a cut in order for YOU to shop there.

Do you surf porn? Expect to pay more. And the free stuff will go away.

Websites like mine will eventually be gone, too, as will PA, and all those other horse racing blog sites you read.


Sure, the conservative side can counter back and say, "Well, that's not what NN is about," and they are right... but only for today.

I would love to be wrong. Tell me what prevents that. But remember, "They probably won't do that" is not a good answer. Tell me why they CAN'T.

Best Buy and Walmart would charge you for browsing their site (if they could get away with it) to cover cost increases. LOL

Just my opinion.


Dave Schwartz