FCC votes to repeal net neutrality rules, a milestone for Republican deregulation push

originally posted by: Konduit
We have a situation where the government is forcing themselves between the customer and the service provider and regulating what the relationship between them should be. Do you really think that's a good idea in the long-term?

So long as the service provider feels entitled enough to abuse the customers at the whim of their major shareholders, yes. I think that's a great idea.

Limiting our access to websites, apps and computer programs in order to enrich themselves is a violation of our basic human rights.

originally posted by: darkbake
a reply to: toysforadults

Give a cable company enough power, and they will do whatever it takes to make money, regardless of it ruining the rest of the economy and costing consumers more.

I'm pretty sure that's been the law since the bailouts. Companies are now required to put their stockholders first.

Trump strikes again...He's on a roll. The FAKE tax cut for the middle class which is really a tax cut for the rich including a Humongous tax cut for CORPORATIOSN

This is another big corporate give away by Trump.


They'll be many more as we go along into the ditch

a reply to: Konduit

People are so grossly misinformed about what Net Neutrality really is

Agreed.

This started under Obama and we had no problem with the internet before then.

I think you may be misinformed.

Net neutrality principles started since the inception of the Internet. Al gore did not invent the Internet and Obama did not invent net neutrality.

However, you are correct. We had no problems with the internet all the while we had Net neutrality.

The only time we had a problem with the internet was for a few months when it was last repealed and Verizon started to PURPOSELY slow down their customers bandwidth to extort money from netflix. Despite Verizon customer paying for 60MB of downloads speeds Verizon purposely slow down their traffic to 1mb. In other words they charged their customers for a service they purposely went out of their way to NOT provide.

If any company in a free market wants to play with fire and start throttling or censoring customers internet usage, people are going to look elsewhere

in fantasy land that would be correct.

However in reality land the ISP companies like comcast have the worst customer ratings year after year and are rated as the most hated company by its customer base. The only way a company can survive with a customer base that hates them is by practicing monopolistic practices.

I hate comcast yet I have them as my ISP. Why because I have no choice they are the only fast broadband provider in my area like 85% of the people in America that have only one choice.

The ISP industry is not a free market its an Oligarch by the 3 largest providers ATT,Verizon,And comcast.

Not even Google with their bottomless pockets have been able to successfully break into the ISP industry due to the power of the existing ISP oligarch.

We have a situation where the government is forcing themselves between the customer and the service provider and regulating what the relationship between them should be

What you got now is a situation where its LEGAL for BOTH the gov't AND private large corporations to decide what you get to do online.

Net neutrality was was overlooked by the corporations and the gov;t and it slipped through the cracks . They now sealed the crack and have regained control of what you get to buy and who you get to do business with, and what you get to hear and listen too online.

a reply to: darkbake

WHAT? Obama era net-neutrality?... WTH is wrong with you people? Do you forget that it was Obama who gave ICANN control of the internet?... Do you forget that one of the governments that is a shareholder of ICANN is China among other very authoritarian regimes?...

Obama administration backs plan to relinquish Internet control

7 Days Before Obama Gives Away Internet & National Security

originally posted by: Konduit
a reply to: links234

I'm not saying what the FCC is doing is entirely bad, but at the same time Net Neutrality is actually shrinking and creating less competition in the free market.

If Apple or Comcast wants to throttle their services, then customers who use those services are going to take their business elsewhere. If more people are looking for an alternative, then companies will start competing and offering better services at cheaper prices. This is how a free market works.

We have a situation where the government is forcing themselves between the customer and the service provider and regulating what the relationship between them should be. Do you really think that's a good idea in the long-term?

Business only want government out of the way when it encroaches on their profits.
But glady want government in the way when it boosts their profits.

They do not shower politicians with billions of dollars a year nor put people in power friendly in their industry without an expected return on their investment.

Regulations are good when it boosts my profits
Regulations are bad when it hurts my profits

9 times out of 10, the deepest pockets win.
We see this over and over again with the Big Wall Street Banks and the Bail Outs and the Insurance and Pharma Industry.

In the middle of all this is the consumer and citizens getting shafted from both directions

originally posted by: links234
Limiting our access to websites, apps and computer programs in order to enrich themselves is a violation of our basic human rights.

Get real, a human right??? If you can't afford the internet find something else to do, like read a book on the porch. Yeah, I like the convenience but it wouldn't shatter my life to mail my bills, read a real book or actually talk to people.

Why should a company be forced to invest in infrastructure if they aren't going to make lots of money for their shareholders.

A la carte makes sense. If I want a big pipe to Netflix for movies, I should be able to buy it, if I have the money.

originally posted by: links234

originally posted by: Konduit
We have a situation where the government is forcing themselves between the customer and the service provider and regulating what the relationship between them should be. Do you really think that's a good idea in the long-term?

So long as the service provider feels entitled enough to abuse the customers at the whim of their major shareholders, yes. I think that's a great idea.

Limiting our access to websites, apps and computer programs in order to enrich themselves is a violation of our basic human rights.

Back when our country was young, and the Mega Corporations did not exist, families saved money and started their own hardware store, their own mercantile, their own restaurant, their own blacksmith shop. They did not owe the banks and did not have stocks on wall street where they took a cut of customers money. The customers, workers and owners spent their money locally rather than hide it in offshore accounts or from the headquarters in once city.

99% of Americans had a chance at making it in capitalism.
People traveled from city to city and country to country to experience the variety and culture other towns and cities had to offer.

The Free Market Capitalism and rugged individualism people long for is long gone.

Today, it is only the deep pockets that own the markets and 99% are left out in the cold.
Those are the facts!

originally posted by: Bramble Iceshimmer

originally posted by: links234
Limiting our access to websites, apps and computer programs in order to enrich themselves is a violation of our basic human rights.

Get real, a human right??? If you can't afford the internet find something else to do, like read a book on the porch. Yeah, I like the convenience but it wouldn't shatter my life to mail my bills, read a real book or actually talk to people.

Why should a company be forced to invest in infrastructure if they aren't going to make lots of money for their shareholders.

A la carte makes sense. If I want a big pipe to Netflix for movies, I should be able to buy it, if I have the money.

There was a time in this country when the customer was number one and the shareholders for the majority of business was not even on the radar. Small town family operations did not have stocks in the finance sector.

That was a time when quality was number one and companies competed for customers rather than shareholders.
Now they compete for politicians and trade with slave labor from communist countries

**quietly praying to the internet gawds that this fascist corporate crap doesn't spread north of the 49th parallel**

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Internet counts as an industrial revolution. People without internet access these days are at an extreme disadvantage as it is a social platform, job platform, information platform, media platform and so much more.

Your comment is like suggesting that people who can’t afford electricity don’t need it.

In addition, I should add that taxpayers spent 400 billion building this infrastructure that you say the ISPs paid for.

originally posted by: Bramble Iceshimmer

originally posted by: links234
Limiting our access to websites, apps and computer programs in order to enrich themselves is a violation of our basic human rights.

Get real, a human right??? If you can't afford the internet find something else to do, like read a book on the porch. Yeah, I like the convenience but it wouldn't shatter my life to mail my bills, read a real book or actually talk to people.

Why should a company be forced to invest in infrastructure if they aren't going to make lots of money for their shareholders.

A la carte makes sense. If I want a big pipe to Netflix for movies, I should be able to buy it, if I have the money.

a reply to: Bramble Iceshimmer

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Article 19.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

It's not about affordability but accessibility. I posted earlier a number of examples where ISP's and mobile carriers specifically restricted access to websites, programs and apps because they hurt their bottom line. These things violated the Net Neutrality orders that were overturned today.

The CEO of Disney/Fox should be really worried about this as it will impact his future earnings for their new platforms while going up against Netflix.

a reply to: Willtell

Trump strikes again...He's on a roll. The FAKE tax cut for the middle class which is really a tax cut for the rich including a Humongous tax cut for CORPORATIOSN

This is another big corporate give away by Trump.


They'll be many more as we go along into the ditch

Agreed.

Here's a post I made the day after Trump was elected... guess I should have posted it in the predictions forum because Trump et al are right on track for those of us who've understood this guy's personality type and ideologies for 30+ years:

originally posted by: CranialSponge
Yup.

I can still hear the corporate lobbyists' echoes of joyous screams and celebrations from last night's Trump win.

- corporate welfare will skyrocket
- corporate taxes will plummet
- corporate regulations will disappear
- corporate cartels will grow to full-blown monopolization

Corporate oligarchy for the win !

Linkypoo

a reply to: trollz

Why all the crying, it's just going to revert back to the rules in 2015. Since when did the internet apocalypse happen before 2015 that I missed?

originally posted by: amfirst1
a reply to: trollz

Why all the crying, it's just going to revert back to the rules in 2015. Since when did the internet apocalypse happen before 2015 that I missed?

What happened in 2015 that required the government to step forward to protect freedom of speech and free markets as they are required to do under the constitution?

a reply to: interupt42

Think you may want to look at isp providers they have improved a lot and do well in polls. Here check out your area.

www.jdpower.com...

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: Annee
I've been following the FCC before and including when Michael Powell was appointed chairman by "W" in 2001.

Ever heard of Clearchannel?

This total control of what media citizens are allowed to see/hear has been in the works for a long time.

I'm afraid you are right. Clear Channel has some exclusive rights for broadcasting at night I believe, while Sinclair now owns most, or all of it, but Sinclair owns a lot more, and is quietly gathering up many of the local TV stations, not affiliates, but actually owns them, Tribune is next on the list I gather, so with Trump and the FCC together all, or most of local news will be Trump news, it's not a joke, Sinclair was helping Trump in the campaign, (though they deny that)
So, while not yet '1984' the groundwork is being done...perhaps then 2024?

YES! Exactly.

I was in a discussion forum in 2000 discussing this. Michael Powell was practically given carte blanche to do whatever he wanted. He did away with the rules to prevent a monopoly - - giving Clearwater free reign to buy up all the radio stations.

Sinclair Broadcast Is Steadily Expanding the Reach of Right-Wing Media
KEVIN DRUMAUG. 14, 2017 www.motherjones.com...#

originally posted by: jacobe001

originally posted by: amfirst1
a reply to: trollz

Why all the crying, it's just going to revert back to the rules in 2015. Since when did the internet apocalypse happen before 2015 that I missed?

What happened in 2015 that required the government to step forward to protect freedom of speech and free markets as they are required to do under the constitution?

It was a battle for control of the internet between the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission. The FCC classified ISPs as telephone providers and the FTC said they were information providers putting them under there jurisdiction. The FCC won which means ISPs are considered telecoms and gives the government control and approval of ISP providers. Since 2015 ISP have to be licensed and approved and are subject to Title II of the Communications Act. This is why many is why many Isp providers disappeared. It turned Isps over to telecom providers such as verizon,Att etc.

With this it was all about government control they can use FCC rules to remove content forcing ISPs to comply or lose their license. It also removed the right of ISPs to make these decisions without government approval. Decide if this is good or bad?

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: interupt42

Think you may want to look at isp providers they have improved a lot and do well in polls. Here check out your area.

www.jdpower.com...

Many of the polls are bs. I have taken them and they lead you to the results they want. Besides that , their service sucked so bad that any improvement still keeps them in the SuckaSphere. How do they stay in business if not for monopolistic practices when they are hated by their customer base?

Comcast Is America's Most Hated Company

America’s Most Hated Companies


Like I said anyways, I have no option but to stay with them. just like most people in the US.

I actually pay more to get less service from them.

If I take their bundle package my Internet would be less. The problem with that is, that every other month they erroneously billed me or switched my cable package to something more expensive. Funny each time they errored it would be at my expense not theirs.

I got tired of dealing with it and I canceled my tv service with them but still kept their Internet as I have no other choice. needless to say they continued to bill me erroneously and never canceled my service. After a couple months and 600 dollars in erroneous charges and days of trying to correct it with them via email and phone I wrote a formal complaint to the FCC about my inability to cancel my service with them. Luckily I kept logs of all the communications as I knew this was going to happen.

A few days after the complaint to the FCC I finally get a call from comcast and the issue was addressed and that erroneous 600 bill not only went away but they actually owed me money.

Talking to other family members and friends they all have experienced similar situations with them. That company sucks and they only survive due to monopolistic practices. I'm one of their victims.