The FCC Chair, Ajit Pai, seems to think so. I seriously have gone through this for some time and cannot see the upside.
Here was an older article that was actually pretty interesting; but in light of that, I'm at a loss as to why this admin is so for the repeal (other than it was championed by Obama).

https://www.forbes.com/sites/j...rality/#2b03085a70d5

It's definitely a bad thing, the way Pai (a former lawyer for Verizon) is planning to take it.

Beyond the theoretical notion that less regulation is good, there is nothing good about this.

Vi Hart can: Net Neutrality in 2017

It is one of the very few things I agreed with during Obama's administration. I don't see an upside either to not having complete freedom of Internet content regardless of who your conduit is to get on the Net. This is one of those things we may need to vigorously and vocally bring to the current administration's and our representatives' attention. I see what the current FCC stooge proposing as essentially allowing the service providers to turn the Internet into a cable TV equivalent of "what and how many channels/websites are you willing to pay for" service providers. Thanks, but no thanks. They need to leave net neutrality alone!

It all depends on if you trust the government or your isp more. I feel that it's just about a wash.

Basic economics.

Like every business since the Sumerians invented bookkeeping, ISB/backbone companies exist to earn a profit. If you make investing in infrastructure unprofitable, it won't get expanded.

If you want the infrastructure built up to meet demand, then the things that choke the infrastructure need to be paying their own weight. Things that don't choke the infrastucture aren't as expensive to support. Net Neutrality meant that they all had to be treated equally, despite this.

It's like the utilities charging less if you agree to put demand-metering on your house, because that keeps you from raising demand during peak times. If there was "Electricity Neutrality" then a house set up like that would be paying the same as their neighbor cranking the AC in the heat of the day.

Removing this shadow subsidization will put the costs back where they belong, and may even make it worth the ISP/backbone companies' time to expand their capacity to support it.

Now, there are a lot of people/companies who like being subsidized and like the status quo. And many people have no idea what services/sites/activities they currently enjoy have been the benefit of this slanted playing field. So when/if the charges start being applied on the high-bandwidth stuff, they will get a bit of a shock. But then, after things settle out, the demand for that stuff will go to non-subsidized levels as costs go up, and the performance of the network services will go up as more capacity goes on line and the artifical demand for those service is reduced.

Means streaming will probably get more expensive, but the performance (frequency of stuttering, etc.) for streaming as well as everything else will go up.

Before Obama, the Internet was classified as Title 1, nearly unregulated. After Obama, it was reclassified as Title 2, the same as land line phone service. Highly regulated.

I don’t see how giving the government the ability to control everything about internet communications is a good thing. Title 2 is the whole enchilada, giving the FCC the ability to regulate everything about IPP communications. Net neutrality sounds good on the surface, but the trip is not worth the gas.

At least if an ISP starts to prioritize packets, I can switch providers. If the government can regulate everything about it, you have zero recourse. For example, under Title 2 the FCC has the authority to theoretically block packets from certain websites, perhaps as hate speech. Maybe sites like our favorite gun forum. No thanks, I’ll take my chances with a government without that much control. Maybe they wouldn’t do that immediately, but the creep of regulation could get us there. Net neutrality gets us started down that path.

It is not even remotely a wash. It's free access to any content on the Internet vs. the service provider controlling and charging you for what and who you access. Many people don't even have access to alternatives or more than one service provider in their communities. Allowing the mega ISPs like AT&T, Comcast, and Time Warner to "regulate" themselves would only mean exactly what I mentioned before, a multi-tiered cable TV like structure to Internet service for those providers and even with the threat of fines would lead to throttling of competitor content and content steering by design. No thanks.

quote:

Originally posted by Dtech:
It is one of the very few things I agreed with during Obama's administration. I don't see an upside either to not having complete freedom of Internet content regardless of who your conduit is to get on the Net. This is one of those things we may need to vigorously and vocally bring to the current administration's and our representatives' attention. I see what the current FCC stooge proposing as essentially allowing the service providers to turn the Internet into a cable TV equivalent of "what and how many channels/websites are you willing to pay for" service providers. Thanks, but no thanks. They need to leave net neutrality alone!

This.

Internet seemed to be doing fine prior to 2010.

It would be nice to keep kids from being exposed to all of the porn, but I don't know how you do that without infringing on freedom.

^ You're just giving the ISPs (which we don't control) that power instead of government (which we do). And while government can certainly be bad, at least they sometimes serve the needs of the people. The ISPs, et al, are never doing so unless by coincidence.

I'm the last person to favor government regulation, but like the need exists to keep dickheads from dumping toxic waste into rivers, or laws are needed to stop slavery in Alabamastan, the internet, too, must be (neutrally with respect to content) regulated to remain both free and accountable.

On top of which, there isn't 1/10th enough actual competition in the ISP market to ever in a million years trust them or have any real options in most of the country. It's effectively a monopoly in far too many markets to ever behave like an actual free market.

Internet service is a core necessity, a vital service for most nowadays, a utility as much as water and power. This shift, if it t happens, is big business cronyism and nothing else, a big boost for a very few companies and a giant shaft for the American people.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: 46and2,

More government is less freedom.

Unless I think I will benefit from it?

quote:

Originally posted by joel9507:
Basic economics.

Like every business since the Sumerians invented bookkeeping, ISB/backbone companies exist to earn a profit. If you make investing in infrastructure unprofitable, it won't get expanded.

If you want the infrastructure built up to meet demand, then the things that choke the infrastructure need to be paying their own weight. Things that don't choke the infrastucture aren't as expensive to support. Net Neutrality meant that they all had to be treated equally, despite this.

It's like the utilities charging less if you agree to put demand-metering on your house, because that keeps you from raising demand during peak times. If there was "Electricity Neutrality" then a house set up like that would be paying the same as their neighbor cranking the AC in the heat of the day.

Removing this shadow subsidization will put the costs back where they belong, and may even make it worth the ISP/backbone companies' time to expand their capacity to support it.

Now, there are a lot of people/companies who like being subsidized and like the status quo. And many people have no idea what services/sites/activities they currently enjoy have been the benefit of this slanted playing field. So when/if the charges start being applied on the high-bandwidth stuff, they will get a bit of a shock. But then, after things settle out, the demand for that stuff will go to non-subsidized levels as costs go up, and the performance of the network services will go up as more capacity goes on line and the artifical demand for those service is reduced.

Means streaming will probably get more expensive, but the performance (frequency of stuttering, etc.) for streaming as well as everything else will go up.

Nice screed, but that's not exactly how it works or what the issue is.
The issue is not 'something for nothing' as you suggest. Most of us pay our service provider for a certain number of bits provided at a certain speed. Some of us, very few us, pay the premium for unlimited data. Comcast is my provider. I pay $90 per month for 1 TB of data delivered at 150Mbps. Under net neutrality, I can get my 1 TB of data at 150 Mbps from anyone I want. That's my choice. My carrier doesn't get to choose which websites get the 150Mbps data rate and which don't. That's the NEUTRAL part of net neutrality. My service provider doesn't get to select which bit get honored in our contract and which bits don't. If I want to use all of my bits on YouTube videos, that's my prerogative.

The way the service providers (and you) want it to work is that the carriers can negotiate speed contracts with the individual "bit suppliers", preferably the BIG bit suppliers. If the Comcast customers all want to watch Netflix (big bit supplier)at a certain speed (the speed that customers have already paid for) and Comcast doesn't want to deliver bits from Netflix at the speed you are paying for (because Netflix hasn't paid the protection mony), they won't have to. That, my friend, is, in plain words "f'ed up" and it has nothing to do with paying for infrastructure. It has nothing to do with expanding the internet backbone. It is all about squeezing extra money out the successful internet companies and screwing the customers who have already paid for their service.
You want cheaper, faster internet like they have in South Korea and Sweden? Get the local and state governments to provide easier and cheaper access to rights-of-way. Killing net neutrality isn't going to do one bit if good in this regard.

I don’t care what it’s called. Once I pay you for internet access, at a certain speed, you can fuck right off. Don’t tell me how many bits I’ve consumed or where my bits took me. Unless you have a factory generating bits, you can fuck right off.

Some dipshit going to tell me I can only take my new tires to Michelin approved spots at Michelin approved speeds can fuck right the hell off.

Also any city making exclusive deals with specific ISPs and locking other providers out can fuck right off. Yeesh.

Net neutrality is like the TSA, all talk no substance.

There are only a few major players and they are all cutting deals for service.

Netflix is 40% +/- of all traffic, it has even displaced porn as the major traffic hog.

Netflix pays the carriers like Verizon and Comcast to prioritize their traffic.

Some traffic is more neutral than others

I would rather have business decide who is more neutral than others rather than government.

China controls their internet and its not such a good thing.


The republican will not be in power for ever.

I would not want to see the government deciding what traffic is neutral and what needs to be censored for the good of the children.

Government needs to stay out of it, the little good net neutrality might do now is not worth government involvement in the long term. The main reason cable monopolies are so prevalent is because most city politicians lined their pockets by allotting territory to the highest bidder instead of allowing true competition. Many areas only have one cable provider that charges whatever the market will bear. The shenanigans that Comcast pulled over the years would not have flown if they had competition and government intrusion is the main reason they had none.

I recently called my cable company to ask why there was a $2.60 "Regional Sports Surcharge" on my bill. I don't even friggin watch sports. It was there to offset what they have to pay the likes of commie ESPN for their services. So not only am I subsidizing sports channels I don't want I'm paying extra for the privilege. All thanks to lack of competition. I solved my fee problem by dealing direct with the cable provider. Actually negotiated a better deal without one iota of .gov nanny-fication.

I seem to remember my telephone bills and equipment cost going down after deregulation in the '80s. Funny how that works. I specifically remember getting taxed extra for a second phone line back in dial-up days so the hoi polloi could get their subsidized internet; cuz only 'dem rich folks could afford two lines. Good old .gov at work redistributing again. Fuck 'em with a U.S. Robotics 56k modem. Sideways.

The internet isn't a core necessity any more then a damn Obamaphone is. Although if .gov can convince you of that it makes a better case for them to be there to "protect you", which might mean a bit 'o taxing at some point. Internet service is highly useful but it's not an absolute necessity. Life may not be as convenient sans internet but maybe more people would crawl out of mom's basement or talk face-to-face if internet convenience wasn't such a high priority.

I'll take my chances with private business any day over getting comfortably numb with whatsyourisours.gov.

I don't have a problem with ISPs charging based on bandwidth or data consumed, just like cell phone companies. But then, I don't watch movies on my computer or phone.

quote:

Originally posted by Veeper:
I don’t care what it’s called. Once I pay you for internet access, at a certain speed, you can fuck right off. Don’t tell me how many bits I’ve consumed or where my bits took me.

This is the beginning, middle, and end of the issue.

However it's accomplished, the only acceptable answer is one that results in this, unfettered access, access that's uncensored, and wholly agnostic to type with respect to cost, because bits are bits, and anyone who says otherwise can buy some fancy HDMI cables from me for $79.99 each. I have loads I'll sell you, with a deed for Phoenix's beach.

The government already failed us at all levels allowing the current clusterfuck, a lack of real competition already exists and the market cannot and will not correct it on its own, and in the absence of competition we have an effective monopoly, and that requires intervention before we get fucked again, and we're about to get fucked again.

And I fucking detest excessive or unnecessary regulation, but this isn't that, at all.