[bimmer456]

What do you think about repealing Net Neutrality? Is it really that big a deal, since the current rules were only put into place in 2015 and things weren't that bad before then. The are just making it like it was before. Of course, no one was really throttling Netflix before 2015 either though they apparently were allowed to. Even with Net Neutrality the cellular companies still throttle Netflix. They have a way to get around the rules.

[overcoil]

If it wasn't that big a deal they wouldn't have changed anything - its setting the ground work for the big guys to pull in more cash or at least bias toward their product.

[ASAP]

the basis of this is deregulation... albeit, like I've always said, something arent best left unregulated... this being one of those... and trust me when I tell you At&t, verizon and comcast are at the top of the scummy chain so we shall see what happens

[minn19]

Originally Posted by ScottSinger

If it wasn't that big a deal they wouldn't have changed anything - its setting the ground work for the big guys to pull in more cash or at least bias toward their product.

This is what I thought when I watched one of the FCC commissioners comments. He said nothing will change because of this and consumers are supposedly still protected. Ok so why change anything than?

[allinon72]

There is a herd mentality with a LOT of misinformation/disinformation about NN.

[UncleWede]

Somebody seems to not like BP, or at least OT since it has suddenly slowed way down

[Taskmaster]

NN Existed PRIOR to 2015 - people who say otherwise are just flat out miss informed.

The biggest issue here was George W Bush's appointee to head the FCC was lazy and incompetent, and placed broadband carriers under "information services" instead of "telecommunication"

While the FCC attempted to uphold the NN rules, Verizon (If I remember correctly) challenged the FCC's authority in court and won. The decision indirectly stated that the FCC would have authority to regulate ISPs if they were reclassified.

Then, in 2015 FCC chairman Tom Wheeler, who was appointed by Obama, changed the classification of ISPs under title II and officially had authority to enforce NN rules again.

The Internet has been operating under this ruleset forever - it's the ISPs who want to (and have attempted to) undermine it. The only reason Trump, and the liked minded conservatives are for the repeal is because "Obama" and bullshit hyperbole like "free markets"

MADISON RIVER: In 2005, North Carolina ISP Madison River Communications blocked the voice-over-internet protocol (VOIP) service Vonage. Vonage filed a complaint with the FCC after receiving a slew of customer complaints. The FCC stepped in to sanction Madison River and prevent further blocking, but it lacks the authority to stop this kind of abuse today.

COMCAST: In 2005, the nation’s largest ISP, Comcast, began secretly blocking peer-to-peer technologies that its customers were using over its network. Users of services like BitTorrent and Gnutella were unable to connect to these services. 2007 investigations from the Associated Press, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and others confirmed that Comcast was indeed blocking or slowing file-sharing applications without disclosing this fact to its customers.

TELUS: In 2005, Canada’s second-largest telecommunications company, Telus, began blocking access to a server that hosted a website supporting a labor strike against the company. Researchers at Harvard and the University of Toronto found that this action resulted in Telus blocking an additional 766 unrelated sites.

AT&T: From 2007–2009, AT&T forced Apple to block Skype and other competing VOIP phone services on the iPhone. The wireless provider wanted to prevent iPhone users from using any application that would allow them to make calls on such “over-the-top” voice services. The Google Voice app received similar treatment from carriers like AT&T when it came on the scene in 2009.

WINDSTREAM: In 2010, Windstream Communications, a DSL provider with more than 1 million customers at the time, copped to hijacking user-search queries made using the Google toolbar within Firefox. Users who believed they had set the browser to the search engine of their choice were redirected to Windstream’s own search portal and results.

MetroPCS: In 2011, MetroPCS, at the time one of the top-five U.S. wireless carriers, announced plans to block streaming video over its 4G network from all sources except YouTube. MetroPCS then threw its weight behind Verizon’s court challenge against the FCC’s 2010 open internet ruling, hoping that rejection of the agency’s authority would allow the company to continue its anti-consumer practices.

PAXFIRE: In 2011, the Electronic Frontier Foundation found that several small ISPs were redirecting search queries via the vendor Paxfire. The ISPs identified in the initial Electronic Frontier Foundation report included Cavalier, Cogent, Frontier, Fuse, DirecPC, RCN and Wide Open West. Paxfire would intercept a person’s search request at Bing and Yahoo and redirect it to another page. By skipping over the search service’s results, the participating ISPs would collect referral fees for delivering users to select websites.

AT&T, SPRINT and VERIZON: From 2011–2013, AT&T, Sprint and Verizon blocked Google Wallet, a mobile-payment system that competed with a similar service called Isis, which all three companies had a stake in developing.

EUROPE: A 2012 report from the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications found that violations of Net Neutrality affected at least one in five users in Europe. The report found that blocked or slowed connections to services like VOIP, peer-to-peer technologies, gaming applications and email were commonplace.

VERIZON: In 2012, the FCC caught Verizon Wireless blocking people from using tethering applications on their phones. Verizon had asked Google to remove 11 free tethering applications from the Android marketplace. These applications allowed users to circumvent Verizon’s $20 tethering fee and turn their smartphones into Wi-Fi hot spots. By blocking those applications, Verizon violated a Net Neutrality pledge it made to the FCC as a condition of the 2008 airwaves auction.

AT&T: In 2012, AT&T announced that it would disable the FaceTime video-calling app on its customers’ iPhones unless they subscribed to a more expensive text-and-voice plan. AT&T had one goal in mind: separating customers from more of their money by blocking alternatives to AT&T’s own products.

VERIZON: During oral arguments in Verizon v. FCC in 2013, judges asked whether the phone giant would favor some preferred services, content or sites over others if the court overruled the agency’s existing open internet rules. Verizon counsel Helgi Walker had this to say: “I’m authorized to state from my client today that but for these rules we would be exploring those types of arrangements.” Walker’s admission might have gone unnoticed had she not repeated it on at least five separate occasions during arguments.

Also, links for everything just said.

Madison River Communications: https://www.cnet.com/news/telco-agre...ng-voip-calls/

Comcast hates pirates: https://www.lexology.com/library/det...e-53a598c3ac10 (article from '08)

AT&T VOIP hostage: https://www.wired.com/2009/10/iphone-att-skype/

Google wallet hostage: http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/06/tech...llet/index.htm

Verizon hates tethering apps: https://www.wired.com/2011/06/verizon-tethering-fcc/

AT&T claimed blocking facetime wasn't a net neutrality issue: http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/23/tech...ime/index.html

"Verizon lawyer Helgi Walker made the company’s intentions all too clear, saying the company wants to prioritize those websites and services that are willing to shell out for better access.": https://www.savetheinternet.com/blog...break-internet

[KenB925]

I really don't know enough to make an educated statement on the subject (But this is OT, I will)

Ending NN will create the incentive for the next leap in internet speed, maybe blazing fast wireless/wired 4K streaming will start out expensive, the inventors will profit and that tech will get cheaper and trickle down to the rest of the internet.

The Government just gets in the way of progress, I don't think what we have will get slowed down, providers have incentive to keep it the way it is, or better. I think "other' things may just get faster.

If we have iron clad NN, we may not get the technology to allow streaming VR, which is no doubt on the horizon.

[Taskmaster]

Originally Posted by KenB925

I really don't know enough to make an educated statement on the subject (But this is OT, I will)

Ending NN will create the incentive for the next leap in internet speed, maybe blazing fast wireless/wired 4K streaming will start out expensive, the inventors will profit and that tech will get cheaper and trickle down to the rest of the internet.

The Government just gets in the way of progress, I don't think what we have will get slowed down, providers have incentive to keep it the way it is, or better. I think "other' things may just get faster.

If we have iron clad NN, we may not get the technology to allow streaming VR, which is no doubt on the horizon.

Read my post above yours. You probably should not have such a strong opinion on this matter when your so ill informed.

[schoy]

^ In my mind, anything that restricts competition (or has the potential to restrict competition) should be regulated. No different than all of the anti-trust or anti-competition laws we have in place. If I can't reasonably go elsewhere for Internet service (particularly since Internet service is an integral part of everyone and every company's day-to-day operations), then I have a problem with my provider restricting or conditioning my access. No different than any other utility, like electricity, natural gas and water.

Now whether the current NN "repeal" will have any effect, I, like others, don't have enough expertise or knowledge.

[KenB925]

Originally Posted by TheAxiom

Read my post above yours. You probably should not have such a strong opinion on this matter when your so ill informed.

I don't have a strong informed opinion, I believe I stated that in my first sentence.

Just pondering why/why not something could be a good or bad thing.

It is certainly a very interesting topic, I firmly believe that the net needs to stay as wild and free as possible, I'm just not sure what that means regarding regulation of it.

We need to have space for innovators to innovate, and they need to be able to profit from it. At the same time, we can't have the current powers stomping out innovation because it threatens them.

Many good analogies can be drawn directly from the auto industry, I just don't have that kind of time right now.

[Banana Hammock]

Originally Posted by KenB925

I don't have a strong informed opinion, I believe I stated that in my first sentence.

Just pondering why/why not something could be a good or bad thing.

It is certainly a very interesting topic, I firmly believe that the net needs to stay as wild and free as possible, I'm just not sure what that means regarding regulation of it.

We need to have space for innovators to innovate, and they need to be able to profit from it. At the same time, we can't have the current powers stomping out innovation because it threatens them.

Many good analogies can be drawn directly from the auto industry, I just don't have that kind of time right now.

So, remember that time you were like "fuck yeah, im going to the library!" and we all got in the car and we got there.

The librarian was super helpful in helping you navigate the Dewey decimal system, but when you went to check out some books, she started charging you more for certain books. Like, for no reason other than because she wanted to.

You were like "woah dude, this is a library, these books shouldn't be priced differently based on their content!" to which she said "Tough. Nothing stopping me. You can read these books that align with my ideological and political leanings for $5, or you can read this book that I authored for free. But these books that I don't want you reading? $20."

Sadly, your broke ass didn't have $20 so you didn't get the books you wanted and you took the books you were offered for free. The entire drive home, you were mad that you had to pay more for access to something that you didnt have to before. You then said "why dont we just go to that other library across town" to which i had to remind you "dude, we only have ONE library that services our area. There is another library, sure. And that library may even have a better selection. But the problem is that you dont live in the right area so that librarian wont even let you check out books. And even then there is no guarantee that she wont charge you whatever she wants as well."

Then you pouted for a bit.

Source: https://np.reddit.com/r/explainlikeI..._im_a/dq6ppr4/

[KenB925]

Originally Posted by pasghetti

Source: https://np.reddit.com/r/explainlikeI..._im_a/dq6ppr4/

I totally agree, but we need to encourage the writers of the unpopular books.

Maybe I'm looking at this differently (perhaps totally wrong), but I am more interested/concerned about the next advancement as opposed to the speed at which we access currently available material.

You don't need to throttle back ideas you don't agree with to alter opinions, just bombard everyone with your agenda. I think we see that now.

[zx10guy]

You're looking at this from a free market stand point. Internet service is anything but. When you have government oligopolies set up where really only two providers can provide service, this is not free market. Even when you have two companies competing for your business, they will collude with each to maintain price controls and while providing the least amount of service possible. Verizon did this a few years ago by agreeing not to expand into markets it didn't already have FIOS. In exhange, the cable companies that held cellular spectrum space Verizon wanted agreed to sell. This all passed through DOJ review.

[hooligan_G01]

Originally Posted by KenB925

I totally agree, but we need to encourage the writers of the unpopular books.

Maybe I'm looking at this differently (perhaps totally wrong), but I am more interested/concerned about the next advancement as opposed to the speed at which we access currently available material.

You don't need to throttle back ideas you don't agree with to alter opinions, just bombard everyone with your agenda. I think we see that now.

In what ways, exactly, does removing NN encourage the next big thing or the "writers of unpopular books"?

There is zero upside in this for the end consumer, from any angle I look.