SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    Can anyone explain to me why repealing NET Neutrality is a good thing?
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Can anyone explain to me why repealing NET Neutrality is a good thing? Login/Join 
Info Guru
Picture of BamaJeepster
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by thumperfbc:
I’m not well educated on this topic but I’m perplexed that some of you seem to believe that MORE government intervention/regulation equals MORE freedom. That’s isn’t the standard line of thinking in these parts.

I tend to prefer free markets myself. Vote with your dollar and all that.. but to be fair, as I mentioned earlier, I am woefully uneducated and only basing this of general theory/history.


Do you trust the market to keep Comcast/etc in line or do you trust Nancy Pelosi, Fauxcahontas and Bernie Sanders to 'make things fair'? That's the question.

I trust market forces way more than I trust government socialists. YMMV.



“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
- John Adams
 
Posts: 29408 | Location: In the red hinterlands of Deep Blue VA | Registered: June 29, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Help! Help!
I'm being repressed!

Picture of Skull Leader
posted Hide Post
I think what we should be arguing and writing our congress critters about is to tell them to start working on things to bring competition into the ISP marketplace.
 
Posts: 11218 | Location: The Magnolia State | Registered: November 20, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Info Guru
Picture of BamaJeepster
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Skull Leader:
I think what we should be arguing and writing our congress critters about is to tell them to start working on things to bring competition into the ISP marketplace.


Bingo. It's the outdated anti-trust laws that force ISP's to not compete against each other. If they ever compete against each other in a market, they can never buy or be bought by any other player in that market. Thus, they never go into a territory where there is an existing ISP.

The government is the problem, not the solution.



“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
- John Adams
 
Posts: 29408 | Location: In the red hinterlands of Deep Blue VA | Registered: June 29, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of olfuzzy
posted Hide Post
Those pesky Californians are at it again Big Grin


California’s Democrat-controlled legislature is again leading the so-called “resistance” to President Donald Trump — this time, by planning to reinstate Net Neutrality rules repealed by FCC’s Republican majority last Thursday.

California State Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) announced following the FCC’s 3-2 repeal vote that he will introduce legislation early in 2018 to re-regulate Internet providers under the so-called “People Power” rules.

Weiner told Bay Area public radio station KQED:

We don’t think that the FCC has the power to stop states from enacting our own rules. In fact, the FCC has lost that argument in court before, so we’re going to move forward. California does have significant ways of impacting internet access. We regulate cable franchises. Cable companies and telecommunication companies rely on access to the public right of way for their public infrastructure.

Weiner knows that there are huge constitutional issues regarding a state attempting to preempt federal authority regarding interstate commerce, but he joined a long list of Democrats in California and other states that view dumping Net Neutrality as the crowning achievement of President Trump’s promise to reverse the progressives’ 80-year expansion of government’s reach through unelected bureaucratic rule-making.

Although progressives argue that “Net neutrality is essential to our 21st century democracy, and we need to ensure people can access websites and information freely and fairly,” as Weiner put it in an essay posted at Medium, the Net Neutrality regulatory regime’s main achievement was banning Internet providers from charging tolls on Google, Facebook, Apple and other Silicon Valley tech giants that move massive content on the Internet for free — while many of those same companies restricted conservative speech.

As a declaration of how financially lucrative net neutrality rules were to Silicon Valley tech giants, they spent a record $139.5 million lobbying the Obama administration and the federal bureaucracy in the year leading up to the February 2015 approval of the Net Neutrality rules along party lines.

President Trump took a victory lap for slashing coercive red tape in a national televised address just hours after the FCC vote: “One of the very first actions of my administration was to impose a two-for-one rule on new federal regulations. We ordered that for everyone new regulation, two old regulations must be eliminated.”

Trump added that he was proud that his administration is ahead of its goal to dump regulatory tyranny by overturning 22 major regulations and halting 1,500 planned regulatory actions.

“We have a responsibility to push back and we’re going to push back,” Weiner told KQED.

In addition, Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA), who represents part of Silicon Valley, issued a statement indicating that she would co-write an amicus brief for planned litigation by Santa Clara County and the Attorneys General from several liberal states to halt the repeal of Net Neutrality.

California progressives argue that unbridled competition will be financially detrimental to consumers. But to pass state Net Neutrality re-regulation, they will need to argue against history and economics — to convince voters that President Reagan’s 1982 de-regulation of the AT&T monopoly, for example, did not lead to a spectacular fall in consumer communication costs, and an even bigger boom in the proliferation of telecommunication services.



http://www.breitbart.com/calif...-own-net-neutrality/
 
Posts: 5181 | Location: 20 miles north of hell | Registered: November 07, 2012Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Nullus Anxietas
Picture of ensigmatic
posted Hide Post
Prime example of why I regard "news" outlets like Breitbart with disdain equal to that I feel for the dominant "news" media...

quote:
Originally posted by olfuzzy:
Breitbart says
quote:

California progressives argue that unbridled competition..."

Show me this so-called "unbridled competition."

quote:
Originally posted by olfuzzy:
Breitbart says
quote:

But to pass state Net Neutrality re-regulation, they will need to argue against history and economics — to convince voters that President Reagan’s 1982 de-regulation of the AT&T monopoly, for example, did not lead to a spectacular fall in consumer communication costs, and an even bigger boom in the proliferation of telecommunication services.

Waitaminute! This wouldn't be the same "deregulation" that resulted from the AT&T breakup that conservatives nearly unfailingly decry, would it? Roll Eyes

N.B.: Once AT&T divested of the Local Exchange Carriers, it did have competition. True competition. From a variety of sources, such as Sprint and WorldCom, for starters. A completely different scenario than what currently exists in local broadband delivery.



"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system,,,, but too early to shoot the bastards." -- Claire Wolfe
"If we let things terrify us, life will not be worth living." -- Seneca the Younger, Roman Stoic philosopher
 
Posts: 26093 | Location: S.E. Michigan | Registered: January 06, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Essayons
Picture of SapperSteel
posted Hide Post
Regarding the question in the OP:



Also, some commentary in the first few paragraphs of the article at this LINK.


Thanks,

Sap
 
Posts: 3452 | Location: Arimo, Idaho | Registered: February 03, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Victim of Life's
Circumstances
Picture of doublesharp
posted Hide Post
In Louisville we have Spectrum with consumer speeds up to 300Mbps, AT&T U-verse high speed internet and Google fiber is in the early roll out phase serving a couple of neighborhoods. Government did help Google by forcing AT&T to permit them to string wire on their poles. The internet did fine without gov regulation. Obama and the rest of the dems are expert at putting warm and fuzzy names on stifling, restrictive regulations.


________________________
God spelled backwards is dog
 
Posts: 4914 | Location: Sunnyside of Louisville | Registered: July 04, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Just because you can,
doesn't mean you should
posted Hide Post
Anyone that is old enough and can remember total government regulation and only one provider, like me, doesn't like the idea of government control.
Phones and phone service has improved tremendously since the monopoly was broken up. Yes it took a while to sort out but it is much better now.
The internet is working from the opposite direction. Now it's lightly regulated and initially it may seem like a good idea to let the government make it more "fair" for everyone.
Just ask yourself, how has greater government control, and a large bureaucracy, worked out in other areas?


___________________________
Avoid buying ChiCom/CCP products whenever possible.
 
Posts: 10097 | Location: NE GA | Registered: August 22, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Essayons
Picture of SapperSteel
posted Hide Post
Pertinent commentary at Zero Hedge: LINK

quote:
Authored by Tom Luongo,

Net Neutrality is gone. Good riddance.

Lost in all of the theoretical debate about how evil ISPs will create a have/have-not divide in Internet access, is the reality that it already exists along with massive subsidies to the biggest bandwidth pigs on the planet – Facebook, Google, Twitter, Netflix and the porn industry.

Under Net Neutrality these platforms flourished along with the rise of the mobile internet, which is now arguably more important than the ‘desktop’ one in your home and office.

Google and Apple control the on-ramps to the mobile web in a way that Net Neutrality proponents can only dream the bandwidth providers like Comcast and AT&T could.

Because, in truth, they can’t. Consumers are ultimately the ones who decide how much bandwidth costs, not the ISPs. We decide how much we can afford these creature comforts like streaming Netflix while riding the bus or doing self-indulgent Instagram videos of our standing in line at the movies (if that’s even a thing anymore).

Non-Neutrality Pricing
Net Neutrality took pricing of bandwidth out of the hands of consumers. It handed the profits from it to Google, Facebook and all the crappy advertisers spamming video ads, malware, scams, and the like everywhere.

By mandating ‘equal access’ and equal fee structures the advertisers behind Google and Facebook would spend their budgets without much thought or care. Google and Facebook ad revenue soared under Net Neutrality because advertisers’ needs are not aligned with Google’s bottom line, but with consumers’.

And, because of that, the price paid to deliver the ad, i.e. Google’s cost of goods sold (COGS), thanks to Net Neutrality, was held artificially low. And Google, Facebook and the Porn Industry pocketed the difference.

They grew uncontrollably. In the case of Google and Facebook, uncontrollably powerful.

That difference was never passed onto the ISP who could then, in turn, pass it on to the consumer.

All thanks to Net Neutrality.

Undercapitalized Growth
With the rise of the mobile web bandwidth should have been getting cheaper and easier to acquire at a much faster rate than it has. But, it couldn’t because of Net Neutrality. It kept rates of return on new bandwidth projects and new technology suppressed.

Money the ISP’s should have been spending laying more fiber, putting up more cell towers, building better radios went to Google to fritter away on endless projects that never see the light of day.

The ISP’s actually suffered under Net Neutrality and so did the consumers.

And therefore, Net Neutrality guaranteed that the infrastructure for new high-speed bandwidth would grow at the slowest possible rate, still governed by the maximum the consumer was willing to pay for bandwidth, rather than what the consumer actually demanded.

And, once obtained that power was then used to punish anyone who held different opinions from the leadership in Silicon Valley.

Think it through, Net Neutrality not only subsidized intrusive advertising, phishing scams and on-demand porn but also the very censorship these powerful companies now feel is their sacred duty to enforce because the government is now controlled by the bad guys.

Getting rid of Net Neutrality will put the costs of delivering all of this worthless content back onto the people serving it. YouTube will become more expensive for Google and all of the other content delivery networks. Facebook video will eat into its bottom line.

The ISP’s can and should throttle them until they ‘pay their fair share,’ which they plainly have not been.

The Net effect of Net Neutrality is that your ISP may charge you more in the short run for Netflix or Hulu. Or, more appropriately, Netflix and Hulu will have to charge you more and we’ll find out what the real cost of delivering 4k streaming content to your iPhone actually costs.

But, those costs will then go to the ISP’s such that they can respond to demand for more bandwidth. Will they try and overcharge us? Of course. AT&T is just as bad as Google and/or Facebook.

But, we have the right to say no. To stop using the services the way Net Neutrality encouraged us to through mispricing of service. If the ISP’s want more customers then they’ll have to bring wire out to the hinterlands.

Inflated Costs, Poor Service
Net Neutrality proponents kept telling us this was the way to help keep the internet available to the poor and the rural. Nonsense. It kept the internet from expanding properly into the hinterlands.

I live just over the county line in rural North Florida. To the south is a town with cable and DSL. Between cable franchise monopolies retarding expansion across county lines and Net Neutrality keeping margins thin, my home was 10 years behind everyone else getting decent bandwidth to keep up with the needs of the modern Internet.

Bandwidth needs artificially inflated, I might add, by the misaligned cost structure engendered by Net Neutrality in the first place.

It took forever for my phone provider to upgrade the bandwidth across the county line. I begged them for a second line for internet service, they wouldn’t even talk to me. Why? The return on that new line wasn’t high enough for them.

If Google was passing some of the profits from Adwords onto the ISPs I’d have multiple choices for high-speed internet versus just one DSL provider.

As always, whenever the political left tries to protect the poor they wind up making things worse for them.

The Ways Forward
The news is good for a variety of reasons. With Net Neutrality gone a major barrier to entry for content delivery networks is gone.

Blockchain companies are building systems which cut the middle man out completely, allowing content creators to be directly tipped for their work versus being supported by advertising no one watches, wants or is swayed by.

Services like Steemit and the distributed application already built and to be built on it point the way to social media cost models which are sustainable and align the incentives properly between producers of content and consumers.

Steem internalizes the bandwidth costs of using the network and pays itself a part of its token reward pool to cover those costs. So, all that’s left is content producer and their fans. Advertisers are simply not needed to maintain the network.

Net Neutrality was a trojan horse designed to replicate the old shout-based advertising model of the golden age of print and TV advertising. It was a way to control the megaphone and promote a particular point of view.

Look no further than the main proponents of it. George Soros and the Ford Foundation are two of the biggest lobbyists for Net Neutrality. Only the political left and its Marxian fantasies of evil middle men creating monopolies fell for the lies, as they were supposed to.

The rest of us were like, “Really? This is not a problem.” And it wasn’t until you looked under the hood and realized all they stood to gain by it.

Now, with Net Neutrality gone the underlying problem can be addressed; franchise monopolies of cable and phone companies in geographic areas. These laws are still in effect. They still hang like a spectre over the entire industry. Like Net Neutrality, these laws concentrate capital into the hands of the few providers big enough to keep out the competition.

So, instead of championing the end of franchise monopolies, which county governments love because they get a sizable cut of the revenue to fund non-essential programs, the Left made things worse by championing Net Neutrality.

That also needs to end. Even if you believe that franchise monopolies were, at one point, necessary. They are not now. IP-based communication is now fundamentally different than copper wire for discrete services like phone and cable. Let people run all the copper and fiber they want. There’s plenty of room in the conduit running under our sidewalks and streets.

Let a thousand flowers bloom, as the great Lew Rockwell once told me.

Then and only then will the Internet be free.


Thanks,

Sap
 
Posts: 3452 | Location: Arimo, Idaho | Registered: February 03, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Info Guru
Picture of BamaJeepster
posted Hide Post
A year later and whaddaya know, we didn't all die after all!

My carrier increased my speed from 100Mb to 150Mb for no additional charge this year. How is that possible??

https://www.washingtonexaminer...e-internet-is-faster

A year after net neutrality's demise, the Internet is faster

They said we would be neanderthals by now, savages scraping ourselves with pieces of broken pottery every time our cat videos wouldn’t buffer. But the Internet apocalypse hasn’t happened.

It has been remarkably unremarkable without net neutrality, one year after Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai killed the Obama-era Internet rule that required service providers to treat each piece of content identically.

“No big changes,” reads a Wired headline atop an article explaining that “broadband providers didn't make any drastic new moves to block or cripple the delivery of content after the FCC's order revoking its Obama-era net neutrality protections took effect.”

Everything has been fine, in other words. Someone should check on the folks below, though. They didn’t just think that the Internet would go dark. They thought that corporations would conspire to create a digital fiefdom where access to information was throttled and people couldn’t communicate freely except by carrier pigeon.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., warned that losing net neutrality would threaten representative government.



GLAAD feared gays and lesbians would be targeted.



Planned Parenthood weighed in for whatever reason.



But people of the Internet, dry your tears! Things are better now than they have ever been. The Internet is actually faster in the United States. A new report by Ookla, a sister company to PCMag, shows that download speeds have increased 35.8 percent across the country. The fastest Internet is actually in Kansas City, Mo., where Google Fiber burns through the wires.

So put down the broken shards of ceramic. Net neutrality is dead. Everyone is fine. Long live the Internet.



“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
- John Adams
 
Posts: 29408 | Location: In the red hinterlands of Deep Blue VA | Registered: June 29, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of bjor13
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by jsawyer09:
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




I don't look at it as good or bad but certainly a miss. I am not an Alex Jones fan but everyone is worrying about Verizon or Comcast throttling Internet sites when we just witnessed this guy essentially be blackballed from it and net neutrality has nothing to do with it.
 
Posts: 1017 | Location: Kentucky | Registered: September 26, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Nullus Anxietas
Picture of ensigmatic
posted Hide Post
I just love it when people who really don't know an industry make proclamations about How Things Are in that industry.

Big Telecom Wants To Tax Netflix To Pay For Broadband Upgrades ISPs Refuse To Deploy Themselves

FCC panel wants to tax Internet-using businesses and give the money to ISPs

The Future of American Broadband Is a Comcast Monopoly

Comcast TV & Internet Fees Go Up AGAIN Dec 20th 2018

But don't worry, be happy, for BamaJeepster's got more bandwidth, so pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Speaking of the man behind the curtain...

Ajit Pai buries 2-year-old speed test data in appendix of 762-page report (Gee, I wonder why...?)

(As an aside: Despite the man behind the curtain's proclamations to the contrary: I, like most of the rest of the country, have only a single viable ISP. Good thing I like my ISP and they're doing a good job, because I've nowhere else to turn.)



"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system,,,, but too early to shoot the bastards." -- Claire Wolfe
"If we let things terrify us, life will not be worth living." -- Seneca the Younger, Roman Stoic philosopher
 
Posts: 26093 | Location: S.E. Michigan | Registered: January 06, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Just a data point...

Around here, if you’re in a neighborhood with AT&T fiber (at least the current gig speed products with fiber to the NID on the house), you agree to let AT&T to inject ads into every web stream, and monitor your dns requests.

Hardly a neutral position.

You could vpn, but now you aren’t getting that speed you are paying for, plus paying another provider. Now you are both paying for a product, and the product itself.


--
I always prefer reality when I can figure out what it is.

JALLEN 10/18/18
https://sigforum.com/eve/forum...610094844#7610094844
 
Posts: 2448 | Location: Roswell, GA | Registered: March 10, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Info Guru
Picture of BamaJeepster
posted Hide Post
quote:

Nothing to do with Net Neutrality - surprise, telecom companies want services that depend on broadband to help pay to expand the service. Shocking.

quote:

Nothing to do with Net Neutrality again. Same as above.

quote:

More doom and gloom nonsense from a source that was proven wrong on it's silly Net Neutrality predictions. We are all supposed to be dead now according to that source.

quote:

Wow, an annual increase - that never happens in any other industry!

quote:

Probably because it has nothing to do with Net Neutrality and the latest data in the report is from Sep of 2017 - BEFORE net neutrality was repealed? In other words, it has nothing to do with the debate on net neutrality.

quote:
(As an aside: Despite the man behind the curtain's proclamations to the contrary: I, like most of the rest of the country, have only a single viable ISP. Good thing I like my ISP and they're doing a good job, because I've nowhere else to turn.)

Yes, I've gone from having 1 choice to 4 in the past year. I now have fiber for cheaper than I had cable.

All of the doom and gloom hasn't happened. Right now we are all supposed to be paying a al carte pricing to access services on the internet...at least according to ones who were for having the government regulate access.



“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
- John Adams
 
Posts: 29408 | Location: In the red hinterlands of Deep Blue VA | Registered: June 29, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Telecom Ronin
Picture of dewhorse
posted Hide Post
Anything that gives .gov more power and is supported by soros is bad. Let the market naturally sort things out.
 
Posts: 8301 | Location: Back in NE TX ....to stay | Registered: February 12, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
quarter MOA visionary
Picture of smschulz
posted Hide Post
ZO vid above is right on.

You know if Bernie is for it then = bad.
 
Posts: 23502 | Location: Houston, TX | Registered: June 11, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8  
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    Can anyone explain to me why repealing NET Neutrality is a good thing?

© SIGforum 2025