FCC to vote for overturning of Net Neutrality

[Flame]

FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources

FCC Plans December Vote to Kill Net Neutrality Rules

Net neutrality rules may be thrown out in December

This needs to get spread around seeing how major news networks won't report it. Ajit Pai can't be allowed to have his way in this.

 

[Sunstone]

Overturning net neutrality makes as much sense as having different speeds of connection for phone calls, with those who pay more getting the faster connections.

 

[Brickjectivity]

theregister is a good site to watch for opinions about this issue
Verizon whips out Big Johnson to lure FCC into axing US states' net neutrality, privacy rules
Chill out about net neutrality, says FCC head, because mobile phones are great

 

[Falvlun]

It’s looking like this is going to go through The vote is scheduled for Dec 14. There’s 3 Republican commissioners and 2 Democrats, so you can guess which way it will go.

There is zero benefit to us, the consumer, to repealing net neutrality. Costs will rise.

Net neutrality states that internet providers must charge the same for all content. By repealing it, telecoms will be able to charge varying rates. They will be able to make “fast lanes” so that a company would have to pay more if they wanted their website to load faster. And who wants to be the company with slow load speeds? So who do you think will ultimately pay for that? It will trickle down to us, the consumer.

Proponents of repealing net neutrality claim that it stifles innovation. This argument makes zero sense. Who do you think will be able to afford the higher prices for faster lanes? The little startup with a new cool idea, or the already established behemoths in the industry? Repealing net neutrality is what will stifle innovation, by providing yet another bias in favor of the already established, at the expense of the up-and-coming.

So repealing net neutrality is bad for the consumer and its bad for small businesses and innovation. Who is it good for? It’s good for the telecoms because they will be able to charge more. And note: they won’t be charging more for a better quality service. They will be charging more for what, up to now, has been a standard feature.

 

[Revoltingest]

An opposing view to net neutrality.....
How the FCC Can Save the Open Internet

 

[Falvlun]

An opposing view to net neutrality.....
How the FCC Can Save the Open Internet

Can’t read the full article. Care to summarize the argument?

 

[Revoltingest]

Can’t read the full article. Care to summarize the argument?

Rats....I thought it would be visible to all.
....checking....
Uh oh....Now I'm hit with a pay wall.

The highlight I recall....
The ability to pay more for greater speed encourages developing & offering faster service.
Limiting the ability to charge for this stifles advancement, ie, why offer more if you can't ensure profiting from it?


Hereafter, I'll take precautions against this.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Rats....I thought it would be visible to all.
....checking....
Uh oh....Now I'm hit with a pay wall.

The highlight I recall....
The ability to pay more for greater speed encourages developing & offering faster service.
Limiting the ability to charge for this stifles advancement, ie, why offer more if you can't ensure profiting from it?


Hereafter, I'll take precautions against this.

If you find another, I'll read it. These points were pretty well addressed by @Falvlun previous post.

It’s looking like this is going to go through The vote is scheduled for Dec 14. There’s 3 Republican commissioners and 2 Democrats, so you can guess which way it will go.

There is zero benefit to us, the consumer, to repealing net neutrality. Costs will rise.

Net neutrality states that internet providers must charge the same for all content. By repealing it, telecoms will be able to charge varying rates. They will be able to make “fast lanes” so that a company would have to pay more if they wanted their website to load faster. And who wants to be the company with slow load speeds? So who do you think will ultimately pay for that? It will trickle down to us, the consumer.

Proponents of repealing net neutrality claim that it stifles innovation. This argument makes zero sense. Who do you think will be able to afford the higher prices for faster lanes? The little startup with a new cool idea, or the already established behemoths in the industry? Repealing net neutrality is what will stifle innovation, by providing yet another bias in favor of the already established, at the expense of the up-and-coming.

So repealing net neutrality is bad for the consumer and its bad for small businesses and innovation. Who is it good for? It’s good for the telecoms because they will be able to charge more. And note: they won’t be charging more for a better quality service. They will be charging more for what, up to now, has been a standard feature.

 

[Falvlun]

Rats....I thought it would be visible to all.
....checking....
Uh oh....Now I'm hit with a pay wall.

The highlight I recall....
The ability to pay more for greater speed encourages developing & offering faster service.
Limiting the ability to charge for this stifles advancement, ie, why offer more if you can't ensure profiting from it?


Hereafter, I'll take precautions against this.

Thanks!
Telecoms are currently free to charge higher prices for faster service, as long as it’s across the board. They just can’t selectively offer faster internet for higher prices on certain content. I fail to see how content selectivity encourages innovation.

Furthermore, if the best argument for it, is the possibility of the development of faster internet, I fail to see how that offsets the certainty of the various downsides: higher consumer prices (which need not be tied to any increase in quality), the ability to put content behind paywalls (currently the content provider can do this; but now your internet provider would be able to do this. This will essentially be like cable tv packages where you have to choose which parts of the internet you want access to), and the stifling of small businesses and startups who won’t be able to pay the higher prices their more established or larger competitors can.

All of that just doesn’t seem worth the possibility that net neutrality is the real thing holding back faster internet speeds. (And yes, I doubt that that is the case. The thing holding back faster, cheaper internet are the telecom companies stifling of competition and constant sabotage of other options.)

 

[Revoltingest]

If you find another, I'll read it. These points were pretty well addressed by @Falvlun previous post.

Except that she addressed only the pro side (which I find unconvincing).

 

[Revoltingest]

Thanks!
Telecoms are currently free to charge higher prices for faster service, as long as it’s across the board. They just can’t selectively offer faster internet for higher prices on certain content. I fail to see how content selectivity encourages innovation.

Furthermore, if the best argument for it, is the possibility of the development of faster internet, I fail to see how that offsets the certainty of the various downsides: higher consumer prices (which need not be tied to any increase in quality), the ability to put content behind paywalls (currently the content provider can do this; but now your internet provider would be able to do this. This will essentially be like cable tv packages where you have to choose which parts of the internet you want access to), and the stifling of small businesses and startups who won’t be able to pay the higher prices their more established or larger competitors can.

All of that just doesn’t seem worth the possibility that net neutrality is the real thing holding back faster internet speeds. (And yes, I doubt that that is the case. The thing holding back faster, cheaper internet are the telecom companies stifling of competition and constant sabotage of other options.)

Some content is hoggier, resulting in greater average use of bandwidth.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Except that she addressed only the pro side (which I find unconvincing).

The truth is not always somewhere in the middle. Right now the case is heavily in the con side because it is heavily in the con side. The pros are for the telecom companies looking to charge more for things that are standard in every other free nation.

 

[Falvlun]

Some content is hoggier, resulting in greater average use of bandwidth.

I am aware of the bandwidth hog issue, like with Netflix; but it is not something I fully understand.

Can you explain why you think this a big enough issue that we should allow internet service providers carte blanche to charge specific content more, or conversely, to throttle any content they wish?

I understand that back in 2011, the issue was that Netflix used up so much bandwidth that it was causing a market decrease in image quality; this hurt both companies in the form of consumer complaints. The issue was resolved when Netflix agreed to buy direct access to the telecom’s network. (Note: I cannot find out if that solution is allowed under Net Neutrality rules. If so, then it seems that the companies involved were able to come to a solution despite net neutrality.)

But if bandwidth hogging is a serious enough issue, repealing Net Neutrality wholesale seems like taking an axe to a heart surgery. We could do a partial rollback, allowing telecoms to only charge high-bandwidth content more. This too would require strict oversight because you know telecoms will abuse the crap out of that. Before you know it, your email will be considered premium content.

But simply allowing telecoms free rein to charge some content more than others, without any required justification, seems like it will just lead to all those other issues I’ve already talked about.

 

[Revoltingest]

The truth is not always somewhere in the middle. Right now the case is heavily in the con side because it is heavily in the con side. The pros are for the telecom companies looking to charge more for things that are standard in every other free nation.

I see it as best on the dereg side.
It's not a market which benefits from such regulation.

 

[Revoltingest]

I am aware of the bandwidth hog issue, like with Netflix; but it is not something I fully understand.

Can you explain why you think this a big enough issue that we should allow internet service providers carte blanche to charge specific content more, or conversely, to throttle any content they wish?

It's regulation without a need.
That simply distorts markets to our detriment.

I understand that back in 2011, the issue was that Netflix used up so much bandwidth that it was causing a market decrease in image quality; this hurt both companies in the form of consumer complaints. The issue was resolved when Netflix agreed to buy direct access to the telecom’s network. (Note: I cannot find out if that solution is allowed under Net Neutrality rules. If so, then it seems that the companies involved were able to come to a solution despite net neutrality.)

But if bandwidth hogging is a serious enough issue, repealing Net Neutrality wholesale seems like taking an axe to a heart surgery. We could do a partial rollback, allowing telecoms to only charge high-bandwidth content more. This too would require strict oversight because you know telecoms will abuse the crap out of that. Before you know it, your email will be considered premium content.

But simply allowing telecoms free rein to charge some content more than others, without any required justification, seems like it will just lead to all those other issues I’ve already talked about.

I'm sure internet providers don't want to lose customers to competition.
So they won't kill the goose.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I see it as best on the dereg side.
It's not a market which benefits from such regulation.

Deregulation for the sake of deregulation isn't a good argument. Especially as all signs point to deregulation stifling growth more, and damaging consumer options purely so they can make a buck, punishing poorer--oh wait that's libertarianism in a nut shell.

 

[Flame]

I see it as best on the dereg side.
It's not a market which benefits from such regulation.

Yeah would work great if the ISP market wasn't such a heavy monopoly in a majority of areas. It's a power grab by overreaching telecom companies.

I'm sure internet providers don't want to lose customers to competition.
So they won't kill the goose.

You've never had Comcast before have you?

 

[Revoltingest]

Deregulation for the sake of deregulation isn't a good argument.

Regulation as a default isn't a good argument.

If a regulation has less benefit than it costs,
then deregulation is worth it. After all, regulation
imposes compliance costs & market distortion.

Especially as all signs point to deregulation stifling growth more, and damaging consumer options purely so they can make a buck, punishing poorer--oh wait that's libertarianism in a nut shell.

I don't buy the argument that such government regulation enhances growth & customer
options. And making a buck isn't a sin....it's how we (most of us) earn a living.
And taxing income is how government supports those who can't pull their weight.
A liberal should understand & support that....otherwise government runs out of money.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah would work great if the ISP market wasn't such a heavy monopoly in a majority of areas. It's a power grab by overreaching telecom companies.

I favor regulations which prevent monopolies.

You've never had Comcast before have you?

Wrongo pongo.

 

[Flame]

Wrongo pongo.

Then you should realize that Comcast is a POS company and is generally the only choice a majority of the people it "serves" have.