No More Net Neutrality?

[Bob Denman]

Is this thing still working?

[wyliec]

Is this thing still working?

Everything I've read means it will end up costing the consumer money. It's been repealed. I don't use twitter or face book, or other social media, which you may be charged for using. That was just one thing that caught my eye. Wait a minute, is SL's social media? Maybe that might cost you.

[Bob Denman]

I hope you know that this "Net Neutrality thing", was only signed into law in 2015...

[wyliec]

I hope you know that this "Net Neutrality thing", was only signed into law in 2015...

It was voted on yesterday to repeal it. So, what is funny?

[Trbayth]

Still reading you 5-by Bob!

Actually net neutrality was never "signed into law." You live by the regulation you die by the regulation.

If neutrality is such a great idea, why aren't people protesting for toll-road neutrality? Why should middle-class people in campers (with multiple axles) pay a higher toll than rich people in a Mercedes?

I'm being sarcastic but could list a bunch more.

[wyliec]

So, when it became the law of the land June 12, 2015, it wasn't really a law?

[Rob Rodriguez]

The way I understand the law(s) I think the biggest factor for people is control. Yes, higher costs are a factor as well but I think control is the largest factor.

There are only a handful of companies that provide internet access to the people of the USA. I know ATT and Comcast are 2 of them. With no net neutrality they now have the control over the content they provide and the speed at which you can consume it. You want faster speeds you pay more, that isn't a whole lot different than it is now. The big one for me..... If ATT decides it wants to start charging website owners a fee to be able to have their site viewable by ATT customers they can do that. For example. If ATT says to Lamont, "you have to pay a $500/yr fee to have SL viewable to all customers who get their internet service from ATT". If he doesn't pay and you get your internet from ATT, you won't be able to view SL.

Or if ATT decides it doesn't like a certain type of web content (political, religious, TV shows, etc) they can choose to block that content to their customers or only provide it if the customer pays additional fees.

I obviously don't know all the ins or outs of the law but from what I've read about it (which I believe to not be fake news) that's the biggest issue in my opinion.

[wyliec]

The way I understand the law(s) I think the biggest factor for people is control. Yes, higher costs are a factor as well but I think control is the largest factor.

There are only a handful of companies that provide internet access to the people of the USA. I know ATT and Comcast are 2 of them. With no net neutrality they now have the control over the content they provide and the speed at which you can consume it. You want faster speeds you pay more, that isn't a whole lot different than it is now. The big one for me..... If ATT decides it wants to start charging website owners a fee to be able to have their site viewable by ATT customers they can do that. For example. If ATT says to Lamont, "you have to pay a $500/yr fee to have SL viewable to all customers who get their internet service from ATT". If he doesn't pay and you get your internet from ATT, you won't be able to view SL.

Or if ATT decides it doesn't like a certain type of web content (political, religious, TV shows, etc) they can choose to block that content to their customers or only provide it if the customer pays additional fees.

I obviously don't know all the ins or outs of the law but from what I've read about it (which I believe to not be fake news) that's the biggest issue in my opinion.

Rob,

Since you are the only one so far that I understand, with a VPN my IP address is hidden, and I'll still be able to view a site that may be blocked; isn't that correct? In recent months there were two sites that were being blocked from me, and I believe that was because I was using Safari, and Chrome, and besides, what I was doing was illegal anyway. I then initiated my VPN, and I was able to view the sites. In this instance it was viewing movies currently in the theater. In another instance, I couldn't get on to my banking site with my IP address hidden; so, I had to come out of my VPN mode.

[mxz600]

The Net Neutrality Debate in 2 Minutes or Less

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...nutes-or-less/

Net Neutrality Pros and Cons

https://vittana.org/13-pros-and-cons-of-net-neutrality

[Trbayth]

So, when it became the law of the land June 12, 2015, it wasn't really a law?

What I meant was there wasn't a bill that Congress voted on. It was a regulation created by the FCC during the he-who's-name-will-be-censored-by-this-site administration.

[Bob Denman]

It was voted on yesterday to repeal it. So, what is funny?

Turn on the Mainstream News, and listen to them holler about the "end of the internet as we know it".

[wyliec]

Turn on the Mainstream News, and listen to them holler about the "end of the internet as we know it".

I don't think the sky is falling just yet.

[Rob Rodriguez]

Rob,

Since you are the only one so far that I understand, with a VPN my IP address is hidden, and I'll still be able to view a site that may be blocked; isn't that correct? In recent months there were two sites that were being blocked from me, and I believe that was because I was using Safari, and Chrome, and besides, what I was doing was illegal anyway. I then initiated my VPN, and I was able to view the sites. In this instance it was viewing movies currently in the theater. In another instance, I couldn't get on to my banking site with my IP address hidden; so, I had to come out of my VPN mode.

I don't know enough about it to give you a good answer .

[Bob Denman]

Chicken Little.jpg

[Easy Rider]

I hope you know that this "Net Neutrality thing", was only signed into law in 2015...

True. But prior to that several other factors came into play.

For a LONG time, the ISPs were regulated as though they were a "common carrier" (IE Telecom) and "non-discrimination" was part of their service rules.

Then the common carrier classification was removed but some loose non-discrimination rules and "gentlemen's agreements" kept a level playing field.

The 2015 act simply made official what was mostly already happening anyway.

NOW......all that is out the window. NOT GOOD NATIONAL POLICY no matter what political leanings you have.
This will not make America great again.

And it is NOT funny.

[Bob Denman]

So is the Sky Falling; or isn't it?
The old informal agreements will continue to exist, and very few changes will occur (in the short-term...)

Since I'm as much a Civil Libertarian, and I am a Conservative Republican; the less Governmental intrusion: the better!

[BajaRon]

It is a very muddy and messy field. Not helped by information forged in the AGENDA driven age. Here is my simplified take-away on this.

Internet was formed in 1983 but really started to come into it's own in the early 1990's. 'Net Neutrality' was implemented by the FCC in 2015. So we have about 25 years of Internet without NN. Neither here nor there but factual.

To overly simplify this I like to compare it to UPS (you know. The 'We Spell Oops with a 'U' guys). With the understanding that any analogy will have holes in it.

First, it is my understanding that 'Net Neutrality' had not yet been fully implemented. But that the real onerous (depending on which side you take) regulations were about to begin.

Roughly speaking, before NN, and presumably now that it will go away. The internet worked much like UPS.

UPS sets up their varied rate schedule based upon cost to them for the particular service you want plus profit. Small, light packages going UPS Ground cost less than larger, heavier packages going overnight. Also, if you are shipping from one Podunk town to another Podunk town prices are higher than shipping from a large metropolitan area to another large metropolitan area. So you get a wide selection of options based on your need and wallet.

Where costs to provide a particular service are higher. Prices are higher. And Vise-Versa. This would compare to a Non-Net Neutrality environment.

Again, basically, Net Neutrality would tell UPS that you have to send everyone's package by the same service for the same price regardless of what it actually costs you to provide the service. This means that those in high service cost areas would pay the same as those living in low service cost areas. In other words. Those who would otherwise be paying less will have to pay more to cover the costs of those who live in a higher cost service area but are not paying enough to cover costs.

This is not he whole story or the end of the debate. Understanding the whole enchilada is not getting any easier.

[pegasus1300]

Ron that sounds like the bind the USPS finds itself in.

[Bob Denman]

...But I think that your analogy works VERY well! Thanks!

[UtahPete]

...But I think that your analogy works VERY well! Thanks!

I agree. That was a helpful explanation and the analogy works well up to a point. That point being, we as consumers can choose from a number of shippers, so competition keeps UPS from gouging the consumer which they could do if they had a monopoly. With the internet, there is no monopoly as such, but since consumers in much of the US are limited to one internet provider in their area, there is an effective monopoly in place.

[Bob Denman]

The prodigal Son has returned...

[UtahPete]

Since I'm as much a Civil Libertarian, and I am a Conservative Republican; the less Governmental intrusion: the better!

The government regulates utilities for a number of beneficial reasons. The FCC was trying to formulate regulations on the internet to protect those who would be vulnerable (i.e. you and I) to predatory market forces. What this FCC has just decided is that the consumer doesn't need protection. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

[PrairieSpyder]

The way I understand the law(s) I think the biggest factor for people is control. Yes, higher costs are a factor as well but I think control is the largest factor.

There are only a handful of companies that provide internet access to the people of the USA. I know ATT and Comcast are 2 of them. With no net neutrality they now have the control over the content they provide and the speed at which you can consume it. You want faster speeds you pay more, that isn't a whole lot different than it is now. The big one for me..... If ATT decides it wants to start charging website owners a fee to be able to have their site viewable by ATT customers they can do that. For example. If ATT says to Lamont, "you have to pay a $500/yr fee to have SL viewable to all customers who get their internet service from ATT". If he doesn't pay and you get your internet from ATT, you won't be able to view SL.

Or if ATT decides it doesn't like a certain type of web content (political, religious, TV shows, etc) they can choose to block that content to their customers or only provide it if the customer pays additional fees.

I obviously don't know all the ins or outs of the law but from what I've read about it (which I believe to not be fake news) that's the biggest issue in my opinion.

Up till the early 80's there was only one long-distance carrier, AT&T. (I started working for AT&T Long Lines in 1980.) Then MCI started competing for the LD business; then they de-regulated who you could buy your desk phone from; then AT&T sold the cellular technology patents to Motorola. At one point you had only two cellular choices, one analog and one digital, in any given market. Now look at all the choices you have, cellular, VOIP, land-line (anyone still using that?), etc.

With all the cellular and internet traffic going on, some companies still have to provide the conditioned circuits to carry it. There's a cost associated with doing so. It makes economic sense to not regulate the net as a utility. It developed without so much regulation and now it can continue. I think we'll welcome all the innovation that will come from a free market.

[UtahPete]

The prodigal Son has returned...

Mmmm...that bowl of potage was my undoing. Thanks!

[RinconRyder]

So is the Sky Falling; or isn't it?
The old informal agreements will continue to exist, and very few changes will occur (in the short-term...)

Since I'm as much a Civil Libertarian, and I am a Conservative Republican; the less Governmental intrusion: the better!

It is MUCH too early to begin worrying about the fallout of this regulation. Several states have already begun designing their own internet regulations (hello WA and CA) which will effectively prevent any federal tampering. They have also threatened to create a state-owned ISP to compete with the existing commercial entities. And, at last count, even the Republicans in the House and Senate were very much against this mandate and could pass legislation to counter it. Then, there are the lawsuits already being filed to set it aside. In short, the FCC just laid a mine field it will have to negotiate without blowing its own feet off.