Last Active: Aug 06, 2019
Threads: 155
Posts: 161
Reputation:
1
An Obama-era law that protects "net neutrality" is repealed by a US regulator, so what does it mean?
Quote:Restrictions on US broadband providers' ability to prioritise one service's data over another are to be reduced after a vote by a regulator.
The Federal Communications Commission voted three to two to change the way "net neutrality" is governed.
Internet service providers (ISPs) will now be allowed to speed up or slow down different companies' data, and charge consumers according to the services they access.
But they must disclose such practices.
Ahead of the vote, protesters rallied outside the FCC's building to oppose the change.
Many argue the reversal of rules introduced under President Barack Obama will make the internet less open and accessible.
The decision is already facing legal challenges, with New York's attorney general, Eric Schneiderman, announcing he will lead a lawsuit challenging the FCC's decision.
Originally Published: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 18:54:50 GMT
source
Last Active: Dec 06, 2019
Threads: 186
Posts: 1,866
Reputation:
32
It means that things will go back to normal.
Since the internet was invented, it's done just fine. Net Neutrality, which should have been more properly called Net Regulation (but that doesn't sound as sympathetic, now does it?) is only rules set by the government onto the internet.
How is that good? It isn't. The government should stay out of it.
As they should stay out of most things. Why should they invade our online presence too? Piss off government.
99% of the problem is with the name. 'Net Neutrality'. Most people think, oh neutrality is good. The Swiss are neutral, and they are ok. But that is a misnomer.
But it is anything but neutral. It allows the government to tell businessess what to do. And what they should do with thier infrastructure, and who they should allow to access it. That is a bunch of crap.
I could go on and on, but I'll wait to see if anyone else responds first.
Last Active: Oct 17, 2018
Threads: 0
Posts: 23
Reputation:
0
Last Active: Dec 06, 2019
Threads: 186
Posts: 1,866
Reputation:
32
LOL. Fine!
What happened before, it that there was free market competition between websites and providers. For many many years. And I didn't see a problem with it. Did you? I bet you didn't.
Then Net Regulation(Neutrality) came in and it stifled competition, and introduced the government to regulate how sites, and other internet companies interact with each other. That's a bad thing.
If say, AT&T wanted to build a new fiber optic line somewhere, increasing internet speed there, why would they? When any other company is allowed to use it freely? They wouldn't build it. What good would it do them? They could use it but so could their competitors, so how would it benefit AT&T to build it? It wouldn't, so they won't build it. Depriving that area of higher internet speeds. If everyone is allowed to use everyone else's hardware, why build it?
It's no different than if you build a restaraunt. And then of course you want to charge people to come there, but if anyone can just come there and use your kitchen and cook stuff themselves, then what is the point? Who is going to build a restaraunt?
Now it's gone. Good.
Last Active: Sep 12, 2021
Threads: 28
Posts: 2,900
Reputation:
36
joew771 - I like the summary.
I just wanted to add that they are also trying to kill public broadband set up by cities, states, and even universities. Here are just a few of those articles.
https://theintercept.com/2017/12/15/fcc-...d-seattle/
https://thinkprogress.org/wisconsin-gop-...72623804a/
Last Active: Dec 15, 2024
Threads: 6
Posts: 40
Reputation:
0
Last Active: Oct 03, 2024
Threads: 67
Posts: 6,379
(Dec 18, 2017, 06:55 am)joew771 Wrote: LOL. Fine!
What happened before, it that there was free market competition between websites and providers. For many many years. And I didn't see a problem with it. Did you? I bet you didn't.
Then Net Regulation(Neutrality) came in and it stifled competition, and introduced the government to regulate how sites, and other internet companies interact with each other. That's a bad thing.
If say, AT&T wanted to build a new fiber optic line somewhere, increasing internet speed there, why would they? When any other company is allowed to use it freely? They wouldn't build it. What good would it do them? They could use it but so could their competitors, so how would it benefit AT&T to build it? It wouldn't, so they won't build it. Depriving that area of higher internet speeds. If everyone is allowed to use everyone else's hardware, why build it?
It's no different than if you build a restaraunt. And then of course you want to charge people to come there, but if anyone can just come there and use your kitchen and cook stuff themselves, then what is the point? Who is going to build a restaraunt?
Now it's gone. Good.
I sincerely hope you are just trolling, but for the sake of those who might believe you actually mean that, I'm going to respond.
Net Neutrality has nothing to do with anything above.
Net Neutrality is not about restricting what a web site can or can't do. It is about restricting ISPs from blocking your ability to visit the web site or charging you more for the ability to visit a web site.
Net Neutrality isn't about forcing ISPs to let others use their infrastructure for free. It is about making sure the customers who have already paid to use it can do so without arbitrary restrictions.
If you like having ISPs take your money and then tell you what you can and can't do with your internet connection, go right ahead and be happy with the recent decision.
Last Active: Jun 06, 2024
Threads: 13
Posts: 220
Reputation:
8
I am not sure what it means yet except most Internet service providers were for a repeal of the rules. I did hear it means they are allowed to datamine our Internet usage data and sell it. So basically my Internet connection will be watched and logged so that I can be targetted for ads by them or others they sell my info too.
Last Active: Oct 07, 2022
Threads: 5
Posts: 376
Reputation:
12
It looks like Net Neutrality is mostly about preventing Data Discrimination.
From what I can tell most ISP's in the US didn't engage in data discrimination before the Net Neutrality rules were created.
In the end things will depend on whether people are willing to use providers that overly restrict their customers, but some people really don't have multiple choices in service providers. That is probably where the hope for competition comes into play.
As for spying, ISP's have always done it and still did after Net Neutrality was put into place. The main thing I know about is they keep logs of your activity in case of complaints, I don't know about other information they might collect.
From what I have read, ISP's cannot see what your sending or receiving through a VPN.
So I would guess that some communication companies may try to ban VPN usage on their network in an effort to further prevent piracy, but I don't see why they would if a VPN prevents them from receiving DMCA complaints about their customers and prevents lawsuits.
Last Active: Today
Threads: 135
Posts: 7,665
Reputation:
54
Dec 21, 2017, 13:02 pm
(This post was last modified: Dec 21, 2017, 13:11 pm by LZA. Edited 1 time in total.)
I agree. It's more about making money. I don't think they will restrict, but they will charge you for special packages, just like Comcast charges me for specific packages. If I paid more, I can get the NFL network and Spike... If there is a restriction, it'll be due to the site not wanting to pay more so than a particular stance that site may have (IMHO)
I found a good YouTube vid from a network engineer disputing points made by Ben Shapiro who was against Net Neutrality. I think it does a good job explaining the issue:
|
