Posted on 11/25/2017 6:25:22 AM PST by tired&retired
Everyone agrees that the Internet should be free and open. How it’s achieved? Well, that’s the issue After signaling that it would for months, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission on Tuesday revealed its plan to dismantle regulations that ensure equal access to the Internet, a concept known as “net neutrality.”
The regulations classify broadband access as a telecommunications service, which subjects it to “common carrier” provisions that bar Internet service providers from discriminating against how broadband is used. The regulations were passed in February 2015 by the FCC, then led by chairman Tom Wheeler. Wheeler’s successor Ajit Pai, a vocal critic of that move even while serving under Wheeler, has vowed to revisit the issue.
Pai’s position is that the common carrier provisions used to ensure net neutrality is “last-century, utility-style regulation” that injects uncertainty into a market now dominated by broadband. Pai, who says he supports an “open Internet,” believes that less regulation in this area is more beneficial to market growth.
(Excerpt) Read more at fortune.com ...
Having trouble with Google Chrome blocking my access to Wikipedia so I'm researching the topic.
Love to hear Freeper's thoughts as I trust conservative opinions more than the Lib rags.
Proponents of the 2015 regulations say Pai is merely clearing the way for Internet service companies to charge users more to see certain content and to curb access to some websites—a “fast lane” and “slow lane” for the Internet. It’s not an unfounded concern. In 2007 the FCC sued Comcast for interfering with traffic from BitTorrent, the file transfer service. The commission lost, owing to a lack of legal basis for the complaint—basis it later achieved with the 2015 reclassification.
They suggest that it is a given that access to the internet should be free and fast.
The premise is simply not true. The world doesn’t owe anyone internet access.
I’m not troubled by most things about having no neutrality, aside from the idea that Google, or some other entity, might make sites that they object to hard to find.
It only makes sense that the more you use the internet the more you should pay for it. People who download nothing but movies should not be subsidized by those who just do a bit of email and facebooking or Freeping.
Need it explained in plain English before I can even make sense of it....Does it exist anymore??
Have you tried a DNS flush? if not google it.
I once had a virus that was blocking access to all anti-virus sites. It did that by creating DNS entries that redirected the browsers.
Net Neutrality makes the internet ‘neutral’ in the same way that The Affordable Care Act made health care ‘affordable’.
Net neutrality is nothing more than a defense by big tech (google, Netflix and Facebook, etc) to prevent ISPs from charging them more for using large amounts of bandwidth. It’s framed as an attack on content when in reality it came about because Comcast wanted to charge Netflix more for single handedly consuming the majority of available bandwidth. This was also defensive in that Netflix was rapidly eating into Comcast’s cable TV revenue.
When Obama bowed to the will of the big tech and entertainment lobbyists (which was why the FCC tried to block BitTorrent. The ISPs immediately stopped unlimited bandwidth plans and went to a pay as you go system on all sides and then don’t charge for content they support. So much for “net neutrality”
If socialists are for it - you can safely be against it.
I have to fall on the “open internet” side of the argument. the only thing I want from an ISP is a pipe. Charge me by the gigabyte, but DO NOT be filtering based on packet content. There lies the dark side.
All these marketing people/jerks trying to “optimize my internet experience”. just make me want to go all 2nd amendment on them.
bmp
My take on “Net Neutrality”. Soros and Rats are for it, that all by itself means to me it is evil and not in my interest.
Like all evil, they start with a statement that sounds appealing and use that as the sole focus for selling it. The statement “this set of regulations is necessary to prevent some services from getting preferred treatment”. But, the real point of these regulations is hidden and not talked about.
By the design of networks, traffic has to be allocated. I want voice telephone calls I make over the internet to have preferred treatment as an example.
Also, I am not aware that there were any issues with routing internet traffic, so the purpose of these regulations was “preemptive”.
I believe the entire purpose of this action, was to be able to begin the process of having Federal government control of the internet, and eventually content.
The result has been clear already, and it has been a big negative. Reduced capital spending on internet infrastructure because of this act - especially in rural areas.
Ultimately what this means is “content” becomes government regulated “hey we have to monitor it to make sure everything is “fair”! and the government gets full control over what you see on the internet.
Without net neutrality government has no immediate say in the matter.
Ajit (shit)Pai is the lawyer who, while working for Verizon sued the FCC to end Net Neutrality.
Conflict of interest, much?
This is what will happen when Net Neutrality ends because this is exactly what's happening in other countries that don't guarantee it:
They cannot keep the internet up and running in my neighborhood and they want to charge ME to fix THEIR problem, which is outside my home.
That's how bad Comcast is and they're a monopoly in my area. No other choice for high speed internet access. Ending Net Neutrality isn't going to fix that, it's just going to make the problem worse.
This is where ending "net neutrality" is going to take us. Not to a more free, fair or open Internet, rather to a more MONETIZED internet where companies like Comcast can force you to pay more for their already crappy service just to get the content you want -- maybe.
Eliminating net neutrality makes it possible for Comcast executives to walk into the Amazon headquarters and saying things like "Nice online shop you have there. Would be a shame if suddenly Comcast customers couldn't access it. You really should consider paying for the Extended Protection Package."
I think a rule that gives as much priority to email packets as it does to a streaming video conference is a poor rule. There was to be some sort of traffic prioritization to not penalize technical advancement.
Obama bowed to “big tech” Comcast. Maybe it won’t be long before Netflix will be “big tech” Netflix.
Even though you have cut your Comcast TV cable, you are probably still using them for Internet access and there is a cap or maximum number of TBytes that an individual home can download before additional fees kick in. It is very possible that a consumer might exceed the limit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.