1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Republican FCC moves to end Obama-era net neutrality rules

Discussion in 'News & Current Events' started by KenH, Nov 20, 2017.

  1. KenH

    KenH Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    41,888
    Likes Received:
    1,465
    Faith:
    Baptist
    "The agency is expected to approve the rollback at its next meeting given the Republican majority, but the issue is likely to end up in court yet again. A federal appeals court upheld the current net neutrality rules in June 2016, siding with the FCC against a challenge from AT&T, USTelecom and other industry trade groups. This time, it’s likely to be net neutrality advocates taking the agency to court.

    The move could also reignite interest in legislation to codify net neutrality rules, which Republican lawmakers and ISPs have pushed for this year. Some FCC watchers believe Pai’s dismantling of the rules could bring Democrats to the table to negotiate a legislative solution to the debate."

    Republican FCC moves to end Obama-era net neutrality rules
     
  2. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    52,013
    Likes Received:
    3,649
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Good
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. Use of Time

    Use of Time Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2014
    Messages:
    4,705
    Likes Received:
    368
    Faith:
    Baptist
    22 million and counting across both party lines have registered complaints to the FCC. I fully expect constituents to be fully ignored here. I fail to see how this is a good thing.
     
  4. Don

    Don Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    Messages:
    11,048
    Likes Received:
    321
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Why?
     
  5. Use of Time

    Use of Time Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2014
    Messages:
    4,705
    Likes Received:
    368
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Politics.
     
  6. Use of Time

    Use of Time Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2014
    Messages:
    4,705
    Likes Received:
    368
    Faith:
    Baptist
    ECFS

    Here is the link if anybody is interested in voicing concerns. Read disclaimers and comment if you are comfortable doing so.
     
  7. InTheLight

    InTheLight Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    24,988
    Likes Received:
    2,268
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Because I want choices in my internet provider. I don't want a one-size fits all government mandated bandwidth and speed with no possibility of getting anything better. It's kind of funny how free market people suddenly want the government to regulate internet providers so that everyone has the exact same access to the internet.

    Set a minimum standard, sure, but don't disallow people from getting better service if they want it. It's downright unAmerican.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Winner Winner x 1
  8. Don

    Don Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    Messages:
    11,048
    Likes Received:
    321
    Faith:
    Baptist
    That "one-size fits all" was a minimum of 25Mbps; ISPs like Comcast, Time-Warner, and AT&T are free to provide more than that. No one is being told to offer *only* that amount. Most folks who have cable internet probably have been receiving more than 25Mbps since the mandated bandwidth was issued; and probably even before then.

    No one's been disallowed from having better service; in fact, many of us were actually hoping Dish, DirectTV, and other satellite providers would be required to lrovide the minimum standard. The only ones disallowing us from having better service are the ISPs themselves.

    Added:
    And I apologize if I missed the sarcasm in your post.
     
  9. InTheLight

    InTheLight Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    24,988
    Likes Received:
    2,268
    Faith:
    Baptist
    So what's the problem? If ISP's have a minimum speed of 25Mbps, but if you want to get Netflix streaming video at 100Mbps by paying more, what's the problem?
     
  10. Don

    Don Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    Messages:
    11,048
    Likes Received:
    321
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Because your internet service could become more like your cable service.

    It's not just Netflix paying Comcast more to have access to their internet service; it's also Etsy, Pinterest, and anyone else who has a server that connects to the internet and pays a "telecom" to allow their website to be accessed by anyone in the world.

    What you could see in the future is trying to use Google to search for a homework assignment; only to find that Google and Time-Warner are having a dispute about service fees, and Google isn't currently available.

    Or signing up for internet service, only to find that Pinterest or eBay isn't in the package you purchased; and you need to buy the next higher package if you want those services.

    Or, like I have with Roku right now, certain services "not available in your area" because a service agreement hasn't been worked out.

    The argument hasn't really been about speeds; it's been about allowing the ISPs to decide which internet services they'll support, and which they'll prevent access to.

    Right now, everyone has the choice to watch Netflix. Chairman Pai's decision allows the ISPs to create a situation where only those that can afford it will be able to watch.

    And that goes for YouTube, Amazon Prime TV, etc.
     
  11. InTheLight

    InTheLight Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    24,988
    Likes Received:
    2,268
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Yes, if you pay the monthly subscription fee.

    Yes, if you pay to have Amazon Prime. Are you saying that ISP's might decide NOT to stream Amazon Prime Video, despite the fact that people have already paid for Amazon Prime Video?

    If so, those ISP's will lose a lot of customers, pretty much all Amazon Prime subscribers. Those that don't have Amazon Prime might stay with that ISP.
     
  12. Don

    Don Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    Messages:
    11,048
    Likes Received:
    321
    Faith:
    Baptist
    To Netflix; what is happening is an opening for ISPs to put Netflix in their "next tier" subscription plan. So you'll pay Netflix their $8.99/month; and then you'll pay your ISP the extra to be able to watch Netflix.

    Exactly. If Amazon or Netflix won't pay a particular ISP their desired amount, that ISP will have the opportunity to block those services--just as what currently happens when DirectTV or Dish have a dispute with CBS, Fox, etc.

    So the only other recourse will be for Netflix to raise their member prices, which also will result in a loss of members.

    And if you're not in a larger metropolitan area, and you only have two choices--sometimes one--for ISPs?

    Hey, we already pay extra for HBO and Showtime, right?

    Or, what you'll see is a phased approach exactly like I've described: initially you won't see anything. At some point, you'll see something from the ISP saying that they're changing their terms. Then you'll get a notification that current subscribers won't be affected, but new subscribers will have to choose a service package--similar to my wife's grandfathered unlimited data plan with AT&T. And then will come the day that the ISP says you're still grandfathered, but you're now limited--again, similar to my wife's grandfathered unlimited data plan, which gets slowed after 22Gb of data use--and hey, wouldn't you rather upgrade to a newer, better plan?

    And by then, we'll all be used to the way things have always been.
    -----
    I don't know if the FCC relinquishing control to the FTC is a good thing. The tech circles I monitor don't think so.

    Feel free to check out ZDNet, CNet, Arstechnica, Tech Crunch, even Slashdot, for more.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  13. InTheLight

    InTheLight Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    24,988
    Likes Received:
    2,268
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I doubt that ISPs can get away with tiered pricing. That price model is becoming extinct with consumers leaving cable and going to pay per services like Hulu, Netflix, and Amazon Prime.

    One thing the Trump administration could do is to ask Congress to pass legislation regarding the internet. Right now the FCC is making rules regarding the internet under an archaic law that was written decades before there even was an internet. Trump has already asked Congress to make laws addressing Obama's executive order overreach, like DACA. No one government bureaucrat should be able to make nationwide policy for an issue that affects basically all Americans. Net neutrality is an issue that Congress should settle.

    Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. InTheLight

    InTheLight Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    24,988
    Likes Received:
    2,268
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The way I understand it is that ISPs will be able to, is they choose to (and that's not a given) is allow fast lanes whereby maybe they would deliver Netflix at a higher speed than, say, You Tube. Or maybe Comcast, who owns Hulu, would give Hulu higher speeds than Netflix. If that were the case Comcast risks that Netflix customers would go to another ISP to get the download speed they want.

    It's true that many areas don't have but a single ISP and there would be nowhere else to go. Well, that's where we have to trust the free marketplace and consumers voting power to put pressure on local officials to get more than one ISP choice for their citizens.





    Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo.
     
  15. InTheLight

    InTheLight Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    24,988
    Likes Received:
    2,268
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Well, this is disturbing...

    In addition to ditching its own net neutrality rules, the Federal Communications Commission also plans to tell state and local governments that they cannot impose local laws regulating broadband service.

    This detail was revealed by senior FCC officials in a phone briefing with reporters today, and it is a victory for broadband providers that asked for widespread preemption of state laws. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai's proposed order finds that state and local laws must be preempted if they conflict with the US government's policy of deregulating broadband Internet service, FCC officials said. The FCC will vote on the order at its December 14 meeting.

    FCC will also order states to scrap plans for their own net neutrality laws




    Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo.
     
  16. Don

    Don Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    Messages:
    11,048
    Likes Received:
    321
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I agree; but why do you think so?

    I completely agree with your assessment that the FCC is trying to administer a communications medium under archaic rules; the problem is that congress isn't seeing far enough into the future to figure out the laws that should govern it. The secondary problem to that is, creating laws that work with, not against, international law (since the internet is a world-wide network with multiple countries acessing, contributing, and controlling).

    I disagree with governmental regulations as a general rule; but this issue extends beyond states, and we must be cautious that corporations don't end up with powers that restrict consumer equality. Perhaps the FTC is where it should actually belong; but because telephony is still included in this issue (in the form of VoIP--telephone service through your ISP), perhaps a completely different area that can address both the communications and commerce aspects of this beast.

    The internet doesn't meet the typical model that covers utilities; and because it includes utilities in a fashion, doesn't meet the standard model for the FTC.
     
  17. Don

    Don Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    Messages:
    11,048
    Likes Received:
    321
    Faith:
    Baptist
  18. InTheLight

    InTheLight Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    24,988
    Likes Received:
    2,268
    Faith:
    Baptist
    From the article:

    For years, Comcast has been promising that it won't violate the principles of net neutrality, regardless of whether the government imposes any net neutrality rules. That meant that Comcast wouldn't block or throttle lawful Internet traffic and that it wouldn't create fast lanes in order to collect tolls from Web companies that want priority access over the Comcast network.

    But with Republican Ajit Pai now in charge at the Federal Communications Commission, Comcast's stance has changed. While the company still says it won't block or throttle Internet content, it has dropped its promise about not instituting paid prioritization.

    Instead, Comcast now vaguely says that it won't "discriminate against lawful content" or impose "anti-competitive paid prioritization." The change in wording suggests that Comcast may offer paid fast lanes to websites or other online services, such as video streaming providers, after Pai's FCC eliminates the net neutrality rules next month.
    -------

    What?
    Comcast says, "they won't impose anti-competitive paid prioritization" and the article then says, "the wording suggests that Comcast may offer paid fast lanes."

    Huh???
     
  19. Don

    Don Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    Messages:
    11,048
    Likes Received:
    321
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Further down in the article....

    In May 2014, Comcast stated: To be clear, Comcast has never offered paid prioritization, we are not offering it today, and we're not considering entering into any paid prioritization creating fast lane deals with content owners.

    As of July 2018: "[W]e do not and will not block, slow down, or discriminate against lawful content," Comcast wrote at the time, omitting its previous promise to avoid paid prioritization.

    -----
    The change in wording is from "we won't" to "we won't impose anti-competitive paid prioritization."
     
  20. Don

    Don Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    Messages:
    11,048
    Likes Received:
    321
    Faith:
    Baptist
    So, over the last week there have been more articles written on the impending vote.

    One techno-geek who's bucking the average techno-geek trend, writes that Pai's proposal actually does one simple thing: deletes some redundant rules. In other words, the previous section of the Net Neutrality rules already covers what Pai is asking to be deleted; so this techno believes the change will have little, if any, effect. In his opinion, the only thing that's changed is, like I've written above, service providers' comments like the one from Comcast (where they change from saying they won't implement fast lanes, to now saying they won't impose anti-competitive fast lanes).

    Another article identifies that the same Republicans who opposed the net neutrality rules, spouting things like "it's over 400 pages long" (when in reality, the actual rules are only 8 pages; the rest of the document explains each of the rules), are now supporting Pai's proposal - which is over 200 pages long, and obviously just limits the explanatory parts.

    And my favorite article, which supports the first paragraph above, is about Google and Amazon. Remember, there are two parts to net neutrality: Content and Service. Amazon, Google, Netflix, Facebook, et al are the Content providers; Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, Time-Warner, et al are the Service Providers.
    If you have Amazon devices, and are trying to visit YouTube, you may see a message that says "YouTube will no longer work on this device after January 1." This is because Google is feuding with Amazon. Remember, these are both content providers. In other words, you have two content providers who are opposing the FCC proposal next week and are allegedly staunch supporters of net neutrality, that are limiting what you and I, the consumers, can access.
    In other words, what they're saying is, net neutrality applies to Service Providers, not Content Providers.
    Does anyone else think this is hypocrisy?

    As I think I've mentioned previously, the problem with implementing government regulations over the internet, is that Congress doesn't understand the internet. Secondarily, the internet doesn't really fit the model of either the FCC or the FTC; so who should be the regulatory body is also grossly misunderstood.

    So in the long run, I can't offer an opinion to anyone about which way to go on this. I support the overall concept of net neutrality; as a communications and information medium, especially in this day and age, no one should be limited from being able to access information or engage in communication. I acknowledge, understand, and even support that Content Providers and Service Providers are companies that need to make money in order to grow and provide better service. HOWEVER, when both the Content Providers and Service Providers are paying lip service to Net Neutrality, there's only one final conclusion: Net Neutrality is a myth, and the consumer will always be at the mercy of Content Providers, Service Providers, or both.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
Loading...