What does net neutrality mean to FC'ers?

The internet as we know it is about to be over.

 

It was good while it lasted.

 

I was fighting for it since more than 20 years. And I lost, together with all the others.

 

I get the jist of what's going on but can anyone break it down ? It's like a paywall for sites is going to occur? Pay extra to visit .. or are we going full blown NK and being censored and hidden from information that should be available to everyone ?


Thought they were voting the 14th

 

Unfortunately it means that all of your activity can be monitored by your ISP and bandwidth can be dedicated/limited for sites/apps that you use. It takes the choices out of your hand.

For example, if Verizon sees that you use Instagram a lot, they could add a monthly charge for Instagram access if they so choose. Or if the CEO of Comcast is a Patriots fan, they could dramatically slow down the connection to any Dolphin's related site.

Big companies like Verizon, Comcast, etc. will make these decisions for us (how thoughtful). We can thank lobbyists for this as well as recent FCC chairman Ajit Pai, who happens to have been a Verizon attorney.

I can't imagine FC will be high on their list of approved sites so the tunnel to FC could be limited or perhaps closed entirely.

Of course who these companies share this information with is very scary.

Voting is set for this Thursday.

 

It's not a vote. It's an execution.

 

Well then it was nice knowing all you fine folk.

I'm assuming the vote will swing to the favor of the companies paying millions to benefit themselves. Pretty disgusting the world we live in. I feel bad for my children and future generations. All that's left is taking away the second amaendment since this will rub out free speech. Police state here we come

 

When you vote it makes a difference. America is changing and not for the better. We need to reign in some of those in office and vote them out!

 

I am more concerned more about google facebook amazon than NN rulings
Were we worried before the the current rules were made?
I

 

I suspect there will be different tiers of service. Do you need the bandwidth for viewing content on more than one device-at-a-time? A family, for example.

Do you just need just the bandwidth for email, FC, web browsing, YouTube? You may qualify for a different tier. To get Netflix 4K, for example, you may have to pay for a different tier to the ISP for the Bandwidth.

 

Voting does not work in a corrupt system.

It's like playing Monopoly with a cheater and letting them work the bank.

 

I've read the hyperventillation over this for a couple of years now and I have to agree with u/elykpeace, I don't really see how this is a big deal to the user. It seems the main import is deciding if Google or Netflix is in charge of the internet (info providers) or ATT/Comcast (Backbone providers). I suspect the real effect upon those on FC will be porn might come a little slower to their screen. (Unless you go to a pay service.)

That's the difference. Who is going to profit and who is going to pay. I think those who use the most bandwidth should pay the most. I don't really care if Google/Netflix/Facebook or ATT/Comcast/Verizon profit. (Although suspect a part of the outrage is because Google/Netflix/Facebook have better messaging. Reddit has been screaming of this for weeks and I bet social media users have been hit with far more marketing to pro-net neutrality opinion from them over anti-net neutrality marketing from the backbone.)

 

Its the logical commercialization of a resource if you believe in that sort of thing. The upside is if it can be done then it also be undone, till that opportunity presents itself just watch the money and remember who walks off with the bags full of your cash.

 

It's NOT just a "who's in charge of the internet". That's not a very accurate depiction at all of the big picture imo. Things like, for example, Comcast decides not to limit speeds of web pages, but decides since they are supporting/$$ backing the "Next Fuckwad for President" and either charge much higher rates for those who support other choices, but also REFUSE to carry/allow access to the content at all. What if Amazon raises prices because they have to pay all these ISPs more money now because some are owned by conglomerates who also own retail stores?

Who wants less choice in the already shitty, sometimes monopolistic, choices of choosing Ian ISP provider?
If you're in areas that you have choices and thus competition amongst providers, good for ya'll. But much of the US does not.


This should not be allowed. Just another reason why this country desperately needs to cleanse the old fucking guys, who have no knowledge of modern technology, out of fucking office and get some younger people in there who are committed to furthering technology and not looking to financially rape it like they have everything else. The worst part is the lies and "head in the sand" actions of the FCC in regards to all the comments that have been faked yet still allowed.

DON'T TRY TO SELL US A DISGUISED SANDWICH, THEN ACT ALL INDIGNANT WHEN WE CALL YOU OUT THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO SERVE US A MOTHERFUCKIN SANDWICH!!!!!


This is bad. This is bad. This is bad. This is bad. This is bad. This is bad. This is bad. This is bad. This is bad.




How long until this happens? "Thanks for calling Purity ISP, where we filter all the horrible interwebs for you to provide you with a pure, clean browsing experience."

 

choices and thus competition amongst providers:
The government shou;d be there for that and that only
for a level playing field
No more no less
but you know how that goes

 

That happens already. There are many articles about the banning of conservative voices on Twitter and the elimination of "fake" news (as defined by Facebook/Google) from different feeds and the demonitization of Youtube with suspected political motivations.

At some point, the market settles. Free stuff for some is not the best way to allocate resources.

That issue was true long before the net neutrality fight. Removing the backbone from being a utility should open competition. How many places do you buy your water from? Your electricity? If you want a limited, monopolistic system of IS providers (), net neutrality almost guarantees it.

 

While I understand concerns as consumers of broadband, and share them as I am one also, the rhetoric around this tends to be very slanted, rather superficial, and limited in view to one side of a coin that indeed has two.

I retired last year after 40 years or more as a project/program manager in the telecom network infrastructure industry and got to see the arguments from both sides.

So, the arguments for net neutrality are well and widely discussed.

And, while its culturally popular to view corporations as evil overlords, the fact remains that net neutrality reduces any motivation for teleco/broadband providers to invest in infrastructure and new technology. To the contrary, why should they spend 100's of millions to upgrade the physical network just to carry your over the top services for which they do not receive a dime. If you think you really are paying all the freight for the cost of the network to delivery your connectivity, think again. THIS is why you see Comcast and others buying up content generating companies.

Telco providers are NOT regulated monopolies and have not been for decades. There is no public service commission guaranteeing them a fix profit while at the same time they are seeing rapidly declining revenue for just the base services voice and broadband. If we did maintain telco as a regulated monopoly, I can promise you that we would not have experienced the innovation resulting in technology that we take for granted today but which didn't exist 20 years ago.

I know...nobody likes really difficult issues with merits on both sides...its much easier to just demonize one side or the other and make it a white hat vs black hat scenario. But that is far too simplistic and fails to recognize the whole spectrum of legitimate concerns.

 

@Baron23 I am at the other end of the spectrum. I had Comcast come to town 40 years ago or so it seems like it was 25 bucks a month period including HBO. Now it's $200 a month without phone.
First thing Comcast did was buy the local sports team and made you pay them to have access to baseball, basketball and hockey. Next they bought NBC so they had the broadcast network covered. They bought Universal Studios so they can control the production of content.
The Internet has become a way of life. Most banks and manufacturing and commercial and retail outlets all insist that you go on the Internet to get full information and services.
Now it seems so the mailman wants to read my mail at least the addresses and sell access of me to me.
Quit buying stuff (teams, arenas, corporations and spend a little in infrastructure.

 

So glad I live in Canada! My partner who is American is feeling rather grateful these days. The current American administration is definitely not working for the average American households. First your tax reform bill benefit mainly the wealthy (I am not complaining as my stocks have been soaring), and now this net neutrality BS. This allows internet providers to charge whatever they want based on your internet traffic towards different sites and usage.

Here is a video explaining net neutrality

www.politico.com/video/2017/11/15/net-neutrality-what-is-it-064313

I feel sorry for you peeps over there... hope things get better. Peace

 

1. We might also say, tax reform benefits the ones who pay taxes.

2. The ISP's cannot charge "whatever they want". The law of supply and demand is a natural law and Congress or the FCC don't have the power or ability to repeal market forces.

 

@Tiny88,
I 'm glad you live in Canada too.

I feel sorry for you peeps over there also... hope things get better. Peace

 

Yes, tax reform helps those who pays taxes... however the benefits fall mostly on the wealthy. So IMHO it would seem like a regressive tax reform. "Ninety percent of the top 1 percent -- those earning about $900,000 and above in 2027 -- would get a tax cut, averaging $234,050." and "middle-income households (those earning $50,000 to $90,000 a year) would receive a tax break on average of $660" -CNN.

Actually in a competitive free market the Law of Supply and Demand left unregulated, firms will set a price equal to marginal revenue = marginal cost (profit max rule). It is left to the FCC and Congress to make sure that this doesn't happen... this is where the trouble lies.

 

No one really knows in any way other than in some statistical-theory kind of way. The bill is not finished. Any numbers like the ones above are making many assumptions. Assumptions, I'm sure, that are not designed to further other goals.

I deal with taxes in my life. It's kinda like my job and I have lots of people calling me wondering how to restructure their finances to take advantage or to prevent the harm from the bill. For me personally, this bill is probably going to be a killer. Because of my particular circumstances, some OTHER assumptions by people (Again, perhaps with an agenda.) on the home mortgage and SALT (state and local tax) deductions, I might lose about $150K in property values the moment it passes. I'd also have to hold on to my current house for 4 more years to be able to sell it using the homeowner exclusion to capital gains AND, I'll be eating about 15K a year in deductions that disappear because I live in a high tax/high property value state. (At least as the media reports the bill as of now.)

The tax bill screws me. I still support it. Even though I'm not in the top 1%. Not even close.

The tax system is a mess. There are tons of manipulations and controls in it that have nothing to do with raising revenue. People spend more money on tax planning than on making the income the taxes cover. It is a huge drag on the economy. I am reminded of a favorite quote of people who make their living as I do:

There are two systems of taxation in our country: one for the informed and one for the uninformed.
---Judge Learned Hand​

Which portion of the population is going to be "informed" on tax issues, higher income or lesser? The supposed reductions for the top percentages assume they have not already taken advantage of the interstices of the law. Also, while a valid argument can be made as to if this progressive/regressive, that is hardly a measure about how good a reform is. Some might claim taxes should be spread as wide as possible rather than paid by a few. There are a number of reasons for this like smoothness of government revenue when the base is larger and a "buy-in" from all for any government action.

No, they can't. I take that back, they CAN set any price they want. As to if they get it is another matter. For instance, I think we would agree that the price of marijuana is not left up to the DEA and Congress. If your local dispensary suddenly decided to "set" the price of mid-shelf at $200 1/8, what do you think the demand will be? I suspect that if they follow a similar pricing scheme on all their product, they'll find their sales to be about zero. There are lots of places to buy. Absent a monopoly, the market forces will crush the guy who prices inappropriately. (If Snoop were to recommend that mid-shelf, I bet the guy might sell some. But then we get into perceived value. A sneaker is a sneaker but a Jordan is...whatever the buyer thinks it is.)

 

Yes, I agree with loopholes and manipulation... most tax systems are plagued with that. There is no perfect system, and in economics even though we hope that government polices lead to Pareto optimal outcomes it rarely does. But, this new tax reform in its original form will make the rich richer and the poor poorer, and shrink the middle class. Yes, there is a huge population that is uninformed, but does this mean that they should get shafted? I believe that a more stable society is where we can level the playing field not one that divides it. And that is what I mean by regressive. As for raising government revenue this new tax reform bill is predicted to add another $1.7 trillion to the deficit?!?

I have to disagree. Yes there are about 20 ISP in the US, but 3 providers own about 65% of the market share. That to me is an oligopoly market structure, which is then susceptible to collusion/price fixing. The market for weed is similar to a perfect market structure and therefore market price prevails as no one has any market power; homogeneous product, perfect competition, and a large number of sellers.

Also the other big factor is price elasticity of internet services, an economic research firm found that the demand for internet services is quite price inelastic (elasticity coefficient is around .2) in most developed nations. So if price goes up people will still continue to demand internet services as it is now considered a necessity vs a luxury good. Thus regulation is necessary.

 

Means rich people wants a firewall as great as chinas and censor stuff not advantageous to them, ultimately controlling people by deciding what information they will allow u to consume, brainwashing the masses like china