The FCC voted to kill Net Neutrality today.

I don't know how many of you are aware of this, but the FCC voted 3 to 2 in favor of getting rid of Net Neutrality today.

what that means for the common person is that ISPs will have the power to regulate the internet as they see fit. including blocking websites they don't like, slowing speeds for customers that don't have "premium" plans, making customers pay extra to visit high traffic sites (like facebook and youtube) and censoring content they deem innappropriate.

what is GRMs thoughts on this?

This is BAD

Actual Internet Pricing Structure in Portugal, a country with no Net Neutrality.

John Welsh said:

This is BAD. 

agreed. not surprised though.

Example:

If you get your Internet via Comcast, it could now be legal for Comcast to not allow you to view Netflix and rather push you to Comcast owned entities. 

In reply to John Welsh :

that makes me even more nervous out here in hte boonies. We already have zero options for high speed internet (DSL through our phone company). What do we do when they decide that netflix, or amazon or ebay are now pay-sites?

I don't know how to properly hate on this without getting political.

Sad day for consumers.  Big pay day for providers and cable companies.

Such disappointing times for America. For what it's worth, I believe somewhere between 75% and 85% of both parties were actually for net neutrality, but it ended in a party line vote. That stat, true or not, was from a Times article, so hopefully it has at least some truth to it.

They got rid of net neutrality because of course they did. Big money has bought and sold this country long ago and the head of the FCC has pretty much done what he wanted legal or otherwise.

Last dying gasps of the cable giants. They see the future, and are trying to prevent it, but can't. Oil will be along shortly.

You still have the power, simply pay the ISP that treats you like a human.

Robbie said:

Last dying gasps of the cable giants. They see the future, and are trying to prevent it, but can't. Oil will be along shortly.

You still have the power, simply pay the ISP that treats you like a human.

Assuming you have the option.  Most people have 1, maybe 2 options for providers.

This. berkeleying. Guy.

Ever known anybody more punchable?

NEALSMO said:

Robbie said:

Last dying gasps of the cable giants. They see the future, and are trying to prevent it, but can't. Oil will be along shortly.

You still have the power, simply pay the ISP that treats you like a human.

Assuming you have the option.  Most people have 1, maybe 2 options for providers.

This. We don't even HAVE options where I live. what's the alternative, no internet? 

Breakdown of who took how much and from whom. 

Any other opinions I have are considered against forum rules, so I'll keep them to myself. 

The winning. I’m tired of it. 

I know one thing. If the content I typically consume via the Internet gets more expensive I have no issues cancelling the whole thing. I was living a happy and content life before the internet and I will do the same after. 

I will be very interested to see how this actually plays out.  There is a chunk of me that says, "If you use more bandwidth, and you are more popular, maybe more money is legitimate.  Billy-Bob Paronoiac and his ramblings won't be subsidised anymore."  Its like the cable TV packages we get here- five channels of a very very narrow interest group, plus one that everybody wants.  I have no issue with the quilters of the world, but I don't really want to pay for Quilt-o-vision.

If it really does limit things based on politics, that may be trouble.  Having said that, I'm sure everything will be blamed on politics anyway. Maybe the un-named feminazi channel will be blocked til 2020, then the cheif oompa loompa's twitter feed will be shut down...

I hope that last political insult was sufficiently bi-partisan to avoid the patio.

In reply to Streetwiseguy :

My issue is that the ISP that also offers cable service could drive up the price of cord cutting options and make their cable packages more appealing.  If I can get TV/internet for 75 bucks but internet/streaming ends up being 100 because I either have to pay extra to unlock access to it, or the ISP has charged that streaming company more and they pass the buck onto the end user what is better for me?  To me that's the whole purpose behind it.  They don't care about making fast lanes or breaking the internet into small bits you pay more for, it's all about TV.

In reply to minivan_racer :

And that regard. its all about money.

While it sucks lawsuits have already been filed. All that needs to be decided is the venue in a few weeks.

The FCC still needs to prove that the rule making is in the interest of the public. It's rather hard to defend this no matter what Pai says considering that there have been numerous instances of abuses prior to enacting Title II. Remember Wheeler pushed for something less than Title II but Verizon sued forcing Wheelers hand.

Since the courts already decided the less than Title II case and the FCC successfully defended the rule making after enacting Title II it's now faced with going back and explaining why, actually Title I was working so that Title II was necessary. The "because it was Obama's legacy and we're seeking to destroy it while helping corporations at the same time" defense isn't in the public interest.

My advice is get in touch with the EFF and find out how you can help. Or, hell, change your smile.amazon.com contributions to the EFF and do some holiday shopping.

John Welsh said:

This is BAD

Actual Internet Pricing Structure in Portugal, a country with no Net Neutrality.

That is exactly what I expect to see soon. A win for big business and forced anal sex for actual people...

Most ISP's are TV/cable companies and we know what their business model is...package a bunch of unwanted crap into a bundle with something 80% of customers want and charge a ridiculous price for that package.  I anticipate the reincarnation of computer modems, dial up internet, and text based discussion boards. 

Was anyone actually complaining about things back before Barrack Hussein did the Internet Neutrality deal? Or was it a government entity, once again, inventing another solution for another non-problem?

 Many times I've wanted to post about this, but have hesitated because of the political rules here.  IMO, this should not be a partisan issue, but these are the times we live in :(

John Welsh said:

This is BAD

Actual Internet Pricing Structure in Portugal, a country with no Net Neutrality.

 

That is not an actual internet pricing structure from Portugal, that is a photoshop to draw attention to the issue and show what it could  be like.  Valuable image, but spreading it as fact could backfire on us :(  A real image:

https://twitter.com/RoKhanna/status/923701871092441088/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.techdirt.com%2Farticles%2F20171030%2F12364538513%2Fportugal-shows-internet-why-net-neutrality-is-important.shtml

I think some of the photoshopped images are blowing the current state elsewhere out of proportion, which is a bit of a disservice to the argument.

I'd like to hear a single anti-net neutrality argument from someone that is not a cable company.  I just don't get it.

Related:  I still have some of these if anyone wants me to send them one:

This will end badly. This thread I mean.  

Nick Comstock said:

I know one thing. If the content I typically consume via the Internet gets more expensive I have no issues cancelling the whole thing. I was living a happy and content life before the internet and I will do the same after. 

 

this is pretty much how i feel about it. If it prices itself out of my comfort zone ill stick with free stuff i can do at home. 

Yay!  Corporate greed wins again!