FCC plan would give Internet providers power to choose the sites customers see and use

what's gonna stop the companies from blocking their competitors websites and thereby no allowing you to shop around for a new provider?? or do we just trust that they wouldn't do that?

originally posted by: roadgravel

Oh, big surprise the Obama appointee is having a problem with this.

Let me put the Constitutional situation this way: the First Amendment is to encourage a "marketplace of ideas." With Net Neutrality, everyone has an identical soap box to rant from. If Net Neutrality is revoked, the service providers can charge for bigger soap boxes. Only rich corporations like CNN will be able to afford the taller soap boxes. Is that the marketplace you want America to become?

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Net neutrality was already gotten rid of by the Obama administration by giving power to ICANN over the internet. Governments like the Communist Chinese Party have already stepped in to "regulate" the internet when it comes to any information and leaks not only coming from China, but any mention of the history of Chinese communism, as they claim to “ensure a clean cyberspace.” This includes whatever the communist regime deems as "fake news", a nomenclature they borrowed from the left in the U.S.

Chinese military launches website to rat on leaks, violations & fake news

originally posted by: dawnstar


what's gonna stop the companies from blocking their competitors websites and thereby no allowing you to shop around for a new provider?? or do we just trust that they wouldn't do that?

Can you give me an example?

What ISP has a competing website to YouTube?

What ISP has a Facebook substitute?

Ya'll gonna have to pay more for the internet package with Twitter so you can see Trump's tweets, yo.

Just sayin....

If you want to see what your POTUS is up to on Twitter, your ISP is going to bundle Twitter into a "package" with CNN, MSNBC and other MSM websites and make YOU pay extra for it. . .

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
Net neutrality was already gotten rid of by the Obama administration by giving power to ICANN over the internet. Governments like the Communist Chinese Party have already stepped in to "regulate" the internet when it comes to any information and leaks not only coming from China, but any mention of the history of Chinese communism, as they claim to “ensure a clean cyberspace.” This includes whatever the communist regime deems as "fake news", a nomenclature they borrowed from the left in the U.S.

ICANN has nothing to do with Net Neutrality. ICANN handles domain name registrations.

originally posted by: Kettu
Ya'll gonna have to pay more for the internet package with Twitter so you can see Trump's tweets, yo.

Just sayin....

If you want to see what your POTUS is up to on Twitter, your ISP is going to bundle Twitter into a "package" with CNN, MSNBC and other MSM websites and make YOU pay extra for it. . .

And why SHOULDN'T it? These sites cost the most to maintain due to their traffic requirements. Why should ISP's have to bear the brunt of the costs induced by specific sites or protocols?

Better yet, why should I have to pay the same price as a low bandwidth consumer vs the pricks who upload terabytes of movies per month?

That's not fair at all!

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

China only has authority over the internet in China.

a reply to: Tempter
you tube and facebook ARE WEBSITES... and this would give the ISP companies the ability to block them or charge more for them. but the actual ISP companies like most businesses also have websites, which, maybe I am wrong, the ISP could also decide not to allow it's customers to view if it so choose to. maybe I am wrong, but it kind of sounds that the companies can pick and choose whatever websites it wants to offer, and which ones it doesn't. if the owner of that company had a buddy that was in business providing whatever service, then is it possible that they would be the only ones you would be able to gain access to online? if they didn't like walmart, could they just block all their customers from the walmart website? ect.. lol... not allow anyone to book reservations at the trump hotels?

a reply to: CriticalStinker

As a not-American, it often stands out how US legislative petitions are given names that are the opposite of their intentions. 'Patriot Act' managed to push US civil rights down a notch or two. Now it's the "Restoring Internet Freedom" paper which constructively reduces customer freedoms and gives ISPs 'freedom' to charge what they want without disclosing details.

I'm late to the thread and haven't read it all (half sorry). Have you read the Gravwell study? They analysed the comments sent to the FCC and discovered that 80%+ were from bots against net neutrality.

The 17%+ from actual people (or non-bots) were overwhelmingly in favour on net neutrality.

The 80%+ spammers/bots is indicative of the mischief and corruption coming from invested parties. It's the cui bono again.

a reply to: Tempter


Net Neutrality only affects consumers economically when services like Hulu raise their rates in order to retain their high speed streaming. The broadband providers like AT&T and Comcast already offer tiered pricing.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Tempter
you tube and facebook ARE WEBSITES... and this would give the ISP companies the ability to block them or charge more for them. but the actual ISP companies like most businesses also have websites, which, maybe I am wrong, the ISP could also decide not to allow it's customers to view if it so choose to. maybe I am wrong, but it kind of sounds that the companies can pick and choose whatever websites it wants to offer, and which ones it doesn't. if the owner of that company had a buddy that was in business providing whatever service, then is it possible that they would be the only ones you would be able to gain access to online? if they didn't like walmart, could they just block all their customers from the walmart website? ect.. lol... not allow anyone to book reservations at the trump hotels?

I'm sure there may be some websites which ISP's own which are high traffic sites, but I can't name any.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Tempter


Net Neutrality only affects consumers economically when services like Hulu raise their rates in order to retain their high speed streaming. The broadband providers like AT&T and Comcast already offer tiered pricing.

And NN is in place today and we STILL have tiered performance for websites. Take a look at YouTube Red as an example.

Also, why SHOULDN'T we have tiered access? Again, why shouldn't we pay for what we consume?

Do you think the road tax is fair to those without a car who only bike?

originally posted by: Tempter
Better yet, why should I have to pay the same price as a low bandwidth consumer vs the pricks who upload terabytes of movies per month?

That's not fair at all!

Perhaps you would prefer to buy a service that has a bandwidth cap for less money?

a reply to: Tempter

Good grief. You clearly do not know what Net Neutrality is. Please go back and read the posts by Aazadan. He knows what he is talking about. It is not about your access it is about the access of content providers and online services.

originally posted by: Tempter
Literally EVERY single example you list is a representation of an emerging technology which was handled in the manner it needed to be.

Servers offering those services had their contracts revised. Netflix had to pay more to host their content. P2P networks ended up with data caps and speed limitations.

Those weren't NN violations.

When you buy internet access you are paying for a specific amount of bandwidth. It is fundamentally wrong for the ISP to be able to dictate what you use that bandwidth on. Should the electric company be able to charge you more for the electricity that goes to your washing machine vs your refrigerator? That's what repealing NN is arguing for.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Tempter
Better yet, why should I have to pay the same price as a low bandwidth consumer vs the pricks who upload terabytes of movies per month?

That's not fair at all!

Perhaps you would prefer to buy a service that has a bandwidth cap for less money?

Yes, exactly! More choice is good!

Remember when the phone companies took away Unlimited Plans? I needlessly hung on to that old plan for years not wanting to get screwed. Eventually I had to call ATT one time and a rep told me that in my years of history I had never even went above 6gb of data in a month.

She convinced me that I could save money by dropping to a 6gb plan and she was right!

Unlimited bandwidth or capacity is almost always unneeded and unnecessary for almost all people. The only people ithat IS necessary for are the large consumers, who SHOULD pay more for their services than a regular consumer.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Tempter
Literally EVERY single example you list is a representation of an emerging technology which was handled in the manner it needed to be.

Servers offering those services had their contracts revised. Netflix had to pay more to host their content. P2P networks ended up with data caps and speed limitations.

Those weren't NN violations.

When you buy internet access you are paying for a specific amount of bandwidth. It is fundamentally wrong for the ISP to be able to dictate what you use that bandwidth on. Should the electric company be able to charge you more for the electricity that goes to your washing machine vs your refrigerator? That's what repealing NN is arguing for.

You're right. I don't know what I'm talking about. I probably shouldn't even bother.


Thanks.

/done