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

a reply to: Middleoftheroad

Tech execs have been forcing their children to do that for some time now.

Maybe more people need to ask why?

originally posted by: loam
Well it's clear that some folks in this thread have no clue what net-neutrality really means.

No wonder we lost it.

And some still think its prevents data caps, when caps still exist. among all the other things it was supposed to prevent, but hasn't.

Maybe some people should stop listening to twitter shills.

People are so grossly misinformed about what Net Neutrality really is. This started under Obama and we had no problem with the internet before then.

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

Net Neutrality is government regulation, plain and simple. And we all know how things turn out when government bureaucracy gets involved. It's even more alarming when you realize Soros backed organizations are the ones pushing for it.

Milo summed it up perfectly in his most recent talk.

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Yeah, I used to be an unfettered globalist too, until I found the error of my ways.

Will be interesting to see if your position holds in a few years.

Globalist? Hardly. I'm 100% in support of domestic free markets. I also am 100% in favor of national protectionist policies. The federal government's involvement in regulations should start and stop at regulating import and export tariffs and policies. Within the domestic sector, they should be encouraging competition and qualifications based service only.

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: Middleoftheroad

Tech execs have been forcing their children to do that for some time now.

Maybe more people need to ask why?

OK, why have tech execs been pissing off their children and forcing them to lose money for some time now?

a reply to: Konduit

Why did the FCC speaker speak about how the FCC can now protect us
with the removal of net neutrality?

-the guys already sensoring all other electronic media to fit their ideas of morality.

So what you are saying is the FCC is fighting to not have anymore power?

I figured they just "patriot acted" the term neutrality, like every other power grab.

originally posted by: Konduit
This started under Obama and we had no problem with the internet before then.

Phone Company Settles in Blocking of Internet Calls

For those customers who had disconnected their traditional phone lines and were relying solely on Vonage, the blocking meant they had no ability to make calls, even to emergency 911 services.

COMCAST SUED OVER BITTORRENT BLOCKING - UPDATED

Comcast refuses to plainly explain what it does to control BitTorrent traffic, but independent analyses have shown that Comcast is severely throttling internet traffic that is using the popular file sharing protocol BitTorrent by sending fake "I'm finished" messages to users' BitTorrent programs. Those fake packets are also alleged to affect users of the mainstream business application Lotus Notes.

To Censor Pro-Union Web Site, Telus Blocked 766 Others

Telus’s one million subscribers were also barred from reading an additional 766 web sites – sites that are hosted by the same server as the pro-union site, but are otherwise unrelated.

Verizon accused of throttling Netflix and YouTube, admits to “video optimization”

Verizon Wireless customers this week noticed that Netflix's speed test tool appears to be capped at 10Mbps, raising fears that the carrier is throttling video streaming on its mobile network.

Group asks FCC to probe iPhone Skype restrictions

The application allows iPhone and iPod touch owners to make free and low-cost international calls over Wi-Fi networks. But in deference to AT&T, the iPhone’s exclusive carrier in the U.S. market, Apple blocks Skype calls made over AT&T’s cellular networks. That makes Skype useless for telephony when it’s out of range of a Wi-Fi network.

Windstream in windstorm over ISP’s search redirects

Responding to a medium-sized uproar, Windstream Communications says it is sorry about those customer searches performed by Firefox users and redirected from Google to its own search engine, and the Little Rock, Arkansas-based ISP has now got the situation under control.

ACCUSED OF VIOLATING NET NEUTRALITY, METROPCS SUES FCC

MetroPCS, the fifth largest U.S. wireless carrier, has already been accused of violating the new rules, which largely prohibit wireless carriers from blocking websites or prohibiting customers from using VoIP services like Skype. The company, which specializes in pay-as-you-go plans, does both with its new 4G plans that block streaming video except for YouTube.

An update on Paxfire and search redirection

Overall, Paxfire admits that it sends users' searches through its proxy servers (we call this redirection; Paxfire disagrees), and that while the proxies look at the searches for specific things, Paxfire maintains that it does not retain logs of these queries unless the user is searching for specific trademark terms using the search box in the browser. In those cases, the search and IP address are logged and the user is sent to the brand’s website directly, rather than to the search engine, and Paxfire and the ISP collect a fee for the referral.

AT&T Blocking iPhone's FaceTime App Would Harm Consumers and Break Net Neutrality Rules

Speculation last month suggested that AT&T might charge its customers an additional fee to use FaceTime on mobile networks. Friday's reports confirmed that instead of charging a separate fee, AT&T will allow mobile FaceTime use only by customers on the carrier's new "Mobile Share" service plans.

FCC fines Verizon $1.25M for blocking tethering apps

In a 10-month investigation, the FCC found that Verizon, the nation’s largest wireless network, asked Google to remove 11 applications in the Android marketplace that were being used to circumvent Verizon’s $20 tethering charge. Tethering is the practice of using a device such as a smartphone or laptop as a modem to obtain Internet access for additional devices.

Please, continue telling us how there have been no problems before.

Net Neutrality was a lie to begin with. I'm glad it's going away, but also a little concerned.

During this so called era of "Net Neutrality" the major internet providers have gone and provided internet services to cities and towns by blocking smaller providers from legally doing business in those same towns.

In states where this was challenged, the major internet providers would either force smaller providers to use their service trunks, or force cities into zoning areas where these smaller companies can provide service. So in my opinion this whole "Net Neutrality" thing was like telling someone that their house is made of ice cream when it's actually of fire. It was just a big lie wrapped up in a family friendly name.

On the other hand some states (like the one I live in Washington) are stating that they are going to fight this with their own rules of business. So it looks like I will still get the crappy service that goes down twice a day for maintenance, but hey who cares because they are the number one internet provider nation wide (who also contributes to political campaigns) I just hope that ending this needlessly wanted rule will open the door for a more fair and competitive market for cities, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

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?

a reply to: Konduit


Exactly! By stating that the internet is a public utility, these companies were able to force cities into using only their services. It was this same issue with the phone companies oh so many years ago, when the Bell corp had control of it all. It wasn't because there weren't other companies, but rather that any smaller company was getting priced out of business by Bell (remember when PacBell and Bell-Atlantic were forced into breaking up). Ending Net Neutrality effectively prevented this same type of situation from getting as bad as it was with the phone comps back then.

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
A sad demonstration that todays american government is not for the people but for the corporations and 1 percenters. Indicative of being rotten to the core.

This pretty much sums up the thread.
The trend for the last 30 years has been for the government to support the too big to fail to get even bigger and gain a larger market share.

Why?

Because the bigger guys have deeper pockets and they encourage their high level employees to go into politics to server them and they parade their chosen in the media.
They purchase politicians and they have the most money backed lobbyists.

represent.us...

Study: Congress literally doesn’t care what you think

One thing that does have an influence? Money. While the opinions of the bottom 90% of income earners in America have a “statistically non-significant impact,” economic elites, business interests, and people who can afford lobbyists still carry major influence.

Make The Intraweb go in "Neutral" again...

originally posted by: Konduit


Net Neutrality is government regulation, plain and simple. And we all know how things turn out when government bureaucracy gets involved. It's even more alarming when you realize Soros backed organizations are the ones pushing for it.

Milo summed it up perfectly in his most recent talk.

Soros is controlled Opposition working for the Big Corporations and Globalist Politicians.

When the too big to fail banks were bailed out, millions across the country were pissed off which is where OWS had its initial roots. In comes Soros to the rescue "donating millions of dollars" and is this is to make sure people side with the Big Crony Capitalists.

Every time the big crony capitalist corporations in bed with the government want something done and get back pressure from the people, here comes Soros to their rescue to make people side with them because the majority of the country are against communism.

If people were not against communism, then how come nothing became of OWS when Democrats controlled both the house and senate?

This latest is no exception, the biggest lobbyists in the ISP business are getting flack from a lot of people in the general population on all sides, and here comes Soros to the rescue.

Now, since Soros is worth billions, he has to be pretty smart in order to have done so.

If he keeps "donating millions" every time some crony capitalists rear their heads and he keeps losing, it is pretty obvious he sides with the Crony Capitalists then.

a lot of people strongly feel net neutrailty is a bad thing...what do you guys think of the vids below.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

I just see this as some power shifting from one group of multi-billion dollar companies, to a different a different group of multi-billion dollar companies.

The past several years of "net neutrality" has not significantly improved service offerings nor prices. Time to try something else.

To be honest, I trust my telco provider more than Google-Amazon-Microsoft and the like. And as I see it, less government regulation is better.

originally posted by: clfun12345
some people strongly feel net neutrailty is a bad thing...what do you guys think of the vids below.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

There never would have been any Net Neutrality Legislation if the monopolies believed in a Free Market and did not try throttling other websites. The way to go back to how it was before the government got involved would require going back to before Crony Capitalists and Monopolies interfered with the Free Market.

Customers want completely free markets.
Crony Capitalists want to own the markets.

originally posted by: AnonymousCitizen
I just see this as some power shifting from one group of multi-billion dollar companies, to a different a different group of multi-billion dollar companies.

The past several years of "net neutrality" has not significantly improved service offerings nor prices. Time to try something else.

To be honest, I trust my telco provider more than Google-Amazon-Microsoft and the like. And as I see it, less government regulation is better.

Google, Amazon and Microsoft are not ISP Gate Keepers though.
People can chose in a free market to use their services are not.
If my ISP makes that decision for me, that is a controlled market.

What happened to all the people that say consumers are responsible for all the cheap Chinese Crap in this country?
Crony Capitalists purchased politicians to make it happen by creating Trade Pacts with slave labor countries.

Now these same people side against the consumers in capitalism that want a free and open internet.

a reply to: Konduit

Yea , because raping and pillaging the population has never been profitable....

Any mom and pop company that wants to compete with Walmart, just has to open their doors..

Because big buisness bottom lines ensure they will act ethically or go bankrupt..



Plus, That’s excluding they team up and create monopolies in most places and modern life almost requires the internet..so then their is no competition..

a reply to: jacobe001

No they can’t when they only have one option... or multiple ones who cooperate..

This is guarenteed to be HORRIBLY abused before more regulations have to be adopted..