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

a reply to: dragonridr

The FCC is why you have no other choice.

The lobbyists is the reason why we have no competition in the ISP industry. They buy off gov't at the local,state, and federal level to get what they want. Just like they did with Net Neutrality.

Ask Google fiber, how they found out that even at the local gov't level the ISP oligarch had anti competitive regulations put in place to prevent competition from ever coming in.

The key word is "regulating" as in you lose your internet freedoms and choices you have now. I don't see your increased cost when it will basically do the exact opposite by lowering cost due to competition.

I keep seeing "less regulation!" But.. in this case, the regulations are (were) the only things that protected the consumer from money-grubbing huge ISPs like Comcast, Verizon, Time-Warner, etc. Regulations were not stifling competition. This won't "open up" competition.

It MIGHT.. if the majority of Americans actually had many choices - but they don't. Over 50% of people only have one choice to begin with. So if your ISP creates say.. social and entertainment "packages" so you can do what you did before at no extra cost.. there is nothing you can do about it. Your choices will be to change your browsing habits, pay more, or simply not have Internet at all. Bad choices all.

a reply to: dragonridr

But more important your wrong again the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was the document that said they have tobe integrated into the local market with other carriers.

Who was wrong? This is what you said:

To get a license you contact the fcc broadband providers must also follow regulations under title 2 which means to expand into a new area they even have to prove they will not adversely effect the market.

The 1996 act provides amendments to the 1934 act, including Title II. There is no provision in Title II such as you claimed. I provided you with a link. Show me the provision requiring licensing, show me the provision about adversely affecting the market. Surely you don't mean Part II, section 256:

(a) PURPOSE .--It is the purpose of this section—
(1) to promote nondiscriminatory accessibility by the broadest number of users and vendors of communications products and services to public telecommunications networks used to provide telecommunications service through—
(A) coordinated public telecommunications network planning and design by telecommunications carriers and other providers of telecommunications service; and
(B) public telecommunications network interconnectivity, and interconnectivity of devices with such networks used to provide telecommunications service; and

(2) to ensure the ability of users and information providers to seamlessly and transparently transmit and receive information between and across telecommunications networks.

You are concerned about small ISPs. See that bolded part? It protects those small ISPs from the big guys. The big guys don't like that. It protects users (us) from the big guys. The big guys don't like that.

new independent companies are going to emerge to provide the service they want at more competitive prices.

No, they won't. Do you have any idea how expensive it is to create infrastructure needed to provide Internet service? People don't even realize that while your service might be provided by a smaller player, you are NOT using their cables to get to your modem. When I would set up networking for construction sites, by the time you get to the pedestal on the street, you are usually having to use another providers cables to get service.

You think the big companies who own that network is going to allow smaller ISPs to challenge them.. using their own infrastructure? That isn't happening. The fees paid will so high, your other "choice" won't be any cheaper than your previous, and probably throttled on top of that. And they can't afford to run their own infrastructure.

Look at Comcast.. even THEY went cheap to avoid laying out infrastructure to provide wireless to their customers. They use your OWN MODEM to give other customers access to wireless networking. Saved them a bundle! You are dreaming if you think this will somehow foster real competition.

I just don't get why people people who are for striking down net neutrality are for it. First off I am not an American but love your politics as for me it is more like a soap opera for me to watch and I love checking in with it at the end of my workday. That being said, one thing I notice is a lot of pro right supporters hate the mainstream media, but in fact passing this bill will give a lot more power to the mainstream media companies such as Verizon, Time Warner Comcast etc ... and let them determine what Americans see. To me this seems like a victory for the mainstream media which Trump and his supporters seem to hate. Anyone else notice this?

originally posted by: chibsonguitarplayer
I just don't get why people people who are for striking down net neutrality are for it. First off I am not an American but love your politics as for me it is more like a soap opera for me to watch and I love checking in with it at the end of my workday. That being said, one thing I notice is a lot of pro right supporters hate the mainstream media, but in fact passing this bill will give a lot more power to the mainstream media companies such as Verizon, Time Warner Comcast etc ... and let them determine what Americans see. To me this seems like a victory for the mainstream media which Trump and his supporters seem to hate. Anyone else notice this?

The Republican party has historically been about deregulating (and up until somewhat recently fiscal responsibility - though that's clearly out the window now), which infers that the dozen or so multi-millionaires/billionaires running those Telecom giants will be amenable to Republican doctrine which has generally pushed for enriching the Ultra-wealthy at the expense of the middle and lower class. I would imagine their hope is that by turning a billionaire into a twice over billionaire they will engender themselves to the internet power brokers in return for some kind of collusion of control that will help entrench them even further (by the methods you mentioned).

originally posted by: chibsonguitarplayer
I just don't get why people people who are for striking down net neutrality are for it. First off I am not an American but love your politics as for me it is more like a soap opera for me to watch and I love checking in with it at the end of my workday. That being said, one thing I notice is a lot of pro right supporters hate the mainstream media, but in fact passing this bill will give a lot more power to the mainstream media companies such as Verizon, Time Warner Comcast etc ... and let them determine what Americans see. To me this seems like a victory for the mainstream media which Trump and his supporters seem to hate. Anyone else notice this?

I have seen arguments both ways with similar worst case scenarios. The worst case scenarios are with the bill you lose your freedoms due to massive government over site and control, and without the bill you are taken to the cleaners by a few mega corps controlling it all.

I don't think either would happen, and I don't think this bill is dead and it will be revived in a slightly different form that would be good for all for us to keep internet freedoms and to have control on the mega corps.

Checks and balances it what we need always...

a reply to: Xtrozero
There is no bill, there is deregulation. This was the FCC declaring that ISPs are no longer common carriers under the Communications Act.

Checks and balances it what we need always...

It is certainly going to court.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
The key word is "regulating" as in you lose your internet freedoms and choices you have now. I don't see your increased cost when it will basically do the exact opposite by lowering cost due to competition. Obama's internet control plan would have but the internet in the hands of a few companies and allow them to tell you what you will see/use on the internet....not good.

Repeat after me, less regulations is good, after a base set of regulations why would we need more in anything since all that further regulations do is add levels of bureaucracy that slow things down to a stop. This is why Trump is saying for every new regulation 5 or more will be repealed.

Less government, especially Obama's government is a (Make America) GREAT (Again) thing!! This is a brilliant win! Free market competition, companies fighting for your business instead of monopolizing it. Less chances of censorship, more information and speech freedoms. Win win win!

originally posted by: fleabit

new independent companies are going to emerge to provide the service they want at more competitive prices.

No, they won't. Do you have any idea how expensive it is to create infrastructure needed to provide Internet service? People don't even realize that while your service might be provided by a smaller player, you are NOT using their cables to get to your modem. When I would set up networking for construction sites, by the time you get to the pedestal on the street, you are usually having to use another providers cables to get service.

You think the big companies who own that network is going to allow smaller ISPs to challenge them.. using their own infrastructure? That isn't happening. The fees paid will so high, your other "choice" won't be any cheaper than your previous, and probably throttled on top of that. And they can't afford to run their own infrastructure.

Look at Comcast.. even THEY went cheap to avoid laying out infrastructure to provide wireless to their customers. They use your OWN MODEM to give other customers access to wireless networking. Saved them a bundle! You are dreaming if you think this will somehow foster real competition.

Just like the Reagan-era breaking up of Bell didn't do anything to foster competition? It was lightspeed ahead after that for telecommunications. Competition breeds ideas, R&D, marketing strategies, test cases/proof of concepts, new and sometimes better service and offerings, and most of all competition breeds competitive pricing which always results in lower fees.

There is no boogie man. Daddy turned on the light and scared it away.

originally posted by: primus2012

originally posted by: Xtrozero
The key word is "regulating" as in you lose your internet freedoms and choices you have now. I don't see your increased cost when it will basically do the exact opposite by lowering cost due to competition. Obama's internet control plan would have but the internet in the hands of a few companies and allow them to tell you what you will see/use on the internet....not good.

Repeat after me, less regulations is good, after a base set of regulations why would we need more in anything since all that further regulations do is add levels of bureaucracy that slow things down to a stop. This is why Trump is saying for every new regulation 5 or more will be repealed.

Less government, especially Obama's government is a (Make America) GREAT (Again) thing!! This is a brilliant win! Free market competition, companies fighting for your business instead of monopolizing it. Less chances of censorship, more information and speech freedoms. Win win win!

i hope you are being sarcastic. i remember before this. there was no competition. the telecoms are all in on this scam. it was verizon or nothing in my town. and they throttled and never gave full speed.

a reply to: primus2012

Just like the Reagan-era breaking up of Bell didn't do anything to foster competition?

That had nothing to do with Title II or deregulation, that was an anti-trust action.

But it was the provisions of Title II of the Communications Act which allowed that competition you speak of. Now internet providers don't have to comply with Title II (phone companies still do, cable companies still do, but ISPs don't), they can snuff their competition before it gets a chance.

a reply to: trollz

Youre free to take it up with your provider, or you know use your wallet to purchase a service that includes what you wish.

Vote with your wallets, its a free market.
Ive long despised the practices of AT&T so guess what they dont get any of my business. How hard is that.

a reply to: ChrisM101

My one and only ISP where I live is Armstrong. Please explain to me how I'm supposed to shop around.

a reply to: ChrisM101

You guys are funny, the ISPs have divided the U.S. into territories, with only one ISP per territory for the most part. ISPs got over 400 billion taxpayer dollars to fund the infrastructure they use. It would be cost-prohibitive for a new ISP to start up and compete. There is no competition. I found out the UK solved this by requiring that their established ISPs rent their pipelines, at cost, to newer ISPs. This brought competition and lower prices.

a reply to: darkbake

I found out the UK solved this by requiring that their established ISPs rent their pipelines, at cost, to newer ISPs.

That falls under Title II, actually. ISPs used to be classified as common carriers under the Communications Act, no longer.

TITLE II--COMMON CARRIERS
PART I--COMMON CARRIER REGULATION
SEC. 201. [47 U.S.C. 201] SERVICE AND CHARGES.

(a) It shall be the duty of every common carrier engaged in interstate or foreign communication by wire or radio to furnish such communication service upon reasonable request therefor; and, in accordance with the orders of the Commission, in cases where the Commission, after opportunity for hearing, finds such action necessary or desirable in the public interest, to establish physical connections with other carriers, to establish through routes and charges applicable thereto and the divisions of such charges, and to establish and provide facilities and regulations for operating such through routes.

transition.fcc.gov...

Phone companies have to do it. Cable companies have to do it. Internet providers...nope.

originally posted by: shawmanfromny
Want to change things?...start a movement, where everyone cancels their internet for 6 months, to a year.

How do you propose people gain a nation wide consensus to start a movement when they are divided on so many issues?
I guarantee you, if a nationwide movement was started against the ISPs by citizens and consumers, they would have the tables turned on them and labeled as commies and dirty hippies by the corporate media.

Corporations are way more united with each other than your average citizen is with each other.
They unite together on lobbying when they want something, they unite when they want trade pacts with cheap labor countries, they have politicians on speed dial, have teams of lawyers to fight consumers, teams of accountants to fight the government that serves them.

But anytime a group of Americans unites against something they want, like this, they are Capitalist hating commies.

How come citizens that run corporations are treated differently and get special treatment than other citizens that also pay taxes?

No one who grew up with commercial breaks is not going to let Congress keep their seat next year.

originally posted by: tabularosa
This is not a deregulation push. It is transfer of control over the internet to a few corporations. Business in America. Same as it ever was. The overturn of net neutrality will be fiercely opposed. Relatively few people who truly understand the issue are in favor of this. And that is a fact.

As has been posted many times, politicians only cater to big business and piss on everyone else.
That is grounds for a revolution since we all pay taxes without representation.

originally posted by: Barcs
Typical republican fear based legislation. Our freedom of speech is at risk. It probably won't be long before sites like ATS are completely blocked. Free discourse and sharing of information is now a thing of the past. It's thought control, plain and simple.

Big Business and Government working hand in hand to screw everyone else.
Another Obamacare Lobbyists Backed Wall Street Bail Out debacle.