FCC plans total repeal of net neutrality rules

uh...they were implemented BECAUSE of things like this. You explicitly said that there was no 'demonstration of a problem prior to 2015'. There were NN regs before the Title 2 classification. But they were basically at teh whim of whomever was leading the FCC (IE who had the WH) and Title 2 was a way to stop the constant shifting based on the Party in Power.

 

So let's get down to what the quote says and what you are now saying.

2013 - Verizon literally stated that the only thing stopping them from favoring some content providers over other providers were the net neutrality rules in place.

2015 - FCC imposes Title II classification to the internet designating it a common carrier.

2017 - FCC wants to roll back the 2015 re-classification.

I could hope but probably not expect you to understand that you have been brainwashed by propaganda and cannot see the problem for your claims that you posted.

 

Well said!

 

Title II Classification was intended to insure that net neutrality remained in place, and make it harder to get rid of.

Trump wants to get rid of it and turn the internet in the US into cable TV.

Which will mean that monopolies will choose what you see, and at what rate you get to see it, as well as how much you pay for it.

They've made no secret of their desire to do just that.

And you're cheering for it simply because the man in your AM radio told you to.

Imagine getting a notice from your ISP telling you that you have to pay extra for a package that contains Netflix, or you can buy a package that gives you high speed access to the Limbaugh Letter or Inforwars, or do without.

Because that's what you're cheering for!

 

This is all bullshit.
The government should have smashed comcast and time warner into little pieces, and forced them to compete.
The government caused this problem, and now you expect the government to fix it???

Insanity.

 

Yeah, "not really a problem"? Sure. When they cut off your access to Faux News and Info Wars, I don't want to hear your crybaby bullshit.

 

Ok, you really need to spend some time doing research on this. Heck, maybe even read the link you quoted to me previously. Here is a bit of a history lesson for you, maybe that'll clear things up

So basically - Bush and CO back in the day made the Internet a Title 1 classification which (as stated above) "no discrimination or price regulations of information services are “necessary for consumer protection” and the commission can’t regulate those services

So then the various ISPs started monkeying with the system causing a crap-storm. The FCC then attempted to regulate said internet and Verizon took them to court and won because at the time, the FCC didn't have the full authority to regulate a Title 1 classified system. Thus the reclassification to Title 2 which allowed the FCC the ability to institute said NN regulations. Then Trump won, the FCC Head was changed to a Comcast Lawyer who is now repealing the NN rules that were put in place by the previous FCC Head after the reclassification gave the FCC the power to institute said NN laws.

 

Honestly, I don't buy the odious bullshit Pai is peddling. "Not investing" because of government regulation is a total ****ing cop out.

More people would sign up for the services of ISP's if they didn't:

A. Act like tyrannical ****ing ******bags.
B. Offered better fiber services.
C. Had actual, real, trained customer service people, not ****ing vomit bots who regurgitate company line.

ISP's need no more power, and the whole notion they don't invest in networks because of government telling them they aren't allowed to charge us for ****ing pop ups is sheer lunacy.

Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner all have atrocious reviews and nothing can be done about it in the majority of cases.

The last thing we need is bundled deals that leave some content providers by the wayside simply because a competitor paid more into an ISP that WON'T invest, but will absolutely enrich itself with the money.

Anyone can look at the cable industry and see the trend here.

 

...the government caused a problem by not stepping in and forcing private businesses into doing something differently?

 

Which Govt? The Clintons who allowed the consolidation of media/news organizations? Bush 2 who classified the internet as Title 1 so that price discriminations would be allowed? Obama who could have, but wouldn't have been able to considering the Legislation stand-still that permiated the majority of his time in office?

I agree that these companies shouldn't have been allowed to consolidate the way they have, but that was then, and this is now.

 

If there was competition for internet service all this would take care of itself.

but nope..... everyone in washington seems to love their campaign donations more then they love the American people they pretend to represent.

 

Nailed it. End thread/

 

No, cable companys have an illegal monopoly.

Smash em to tiny pieces like was done to the phone companies in the 80s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System

 

how about we leave it and when viable competition is in place we can talk about removing it and letting cable companies slow down their competition in the media market

 

So much wrong, so little time. There is even question whether the FCC has the legal right to classify broadband as a communication service instead of what it really is, an information service. That will go to court if the FCC does not reverse Title II classification.

 

In other words, the new method for physician services is via internet where doctors that are well versed in certain operations coach other doctors through surgeries. With the current NN that channel cannot get priority over anything else. This is what you want.

 

You DO realize this takes us back to 2015 when the rules developed during the Clinton years were established and it was a free market system. THAT has been the SUCCESS of the internet and now the governrment wants to run it. Do you want the government to control your cable and satellite TV too. The internet became the wonderful thing it is BEFORE the Obama administration decided the government would do a better job of dictating it. The FREE MARKET is the best decider of what the internet should be and where it should go and let competition rule.

 

The Clinton ones.

 

I would love to see competition in the public utilities just like with the internet. I have several choices and means of accessing the internet and competition is what drives innovation as we saw in building the internet we have today. Why do you want government in a position to dictate to internet providers what they must provide and at what cost?

 

If you take the time to read even This page, you'll see I explain all of that.

The Telecommunications act of the Clinton years has less to do about actual Internet traffic (because it was barely a thing back then with 56K modems being the best thing ever) and more about allowing these companies to consolidate (which, I fully agree is absolutely terrible and they should feel bad for signing that claptrap)

Bush 1 started this by classifying the Internet at Title 1. Thus (a page back you'll see the list of events that has been catalogued showing some of the various things companies have done to push their own stuff over the competitors).

2015 is simply when the Internet was classified as Title 2. The NN rules were actually pushed in 2010 but were struck down because of the Title 2 classification. When Obama reclassified it as Title 2, thats when the FCC was able to push the NN rules.

Also, these regs do not give the Govt the ability to Run anything. At all. All they do is say that ISPs have to treat each Packet the same as the rest. No more, no less. How is that 'running' the internet?

 

Good. Get rid of the misleadingly named "net neutrality". Keep the govt out of the internet.

And censorship has already started through Facebook and Google's filtering out what they claim is "fake news", which always seems to mean that conservatives get blocked.

 

And if they block ones I want I will change internet provider. I use Uverse, I can also use Verizon or Mediacom or T-Mobile or Consumer Cellular, or Direct TV or a host of others and with a free market and innovation I am sure other means of doing so will be right over the horizon. Put it in the hands of government bureaucrats and watch content go down and prices go up.

 

First off, I'm glad to hear you say that, because I agree. More competition is better.

The problem is, is that the Clintons screwed that pooch and if anyone wants to change it, they will have to break up the Telecoms. Hard to do in this particular political atmosphere.

And these rules don't dictate to ISPs what they must price out. Simply that they can't create tiered lanes. If they want to change their prices, they are free to do so, but the service can't be more then 'internet On, or internet Off".

 

That's how and guess how fast the list of they say will increase.

 

NN has nothing to do with the content provided by the private companies you list. Simply the delivery. Would you want Breitbart or The Daily Wire to never load because the Dems bribed your ISP to slow it?

Wondeful for you. What about those who only have 1 option?