Some great tidbits in there too!
At best you can argue it quasi-existed, the FCC was fighting for it but it was not protected by law until 2015.
Net neutrality is all but dead. Here's what happens now.
- Thread starter Nokterian
- Start date
Some great tidbits in there too!
At best you can argue it quasi-existed, the FCC was fighting for it but it was not protected by law until 2015.
Verizon was really bad. You could only access the internet through their specific apps and were blocked from going anywhere ,downloading, or streaming from anywhere other than their affiliates.
You want to stream music? Your only option was to pay a subscription to Verizon's music service.
I was under the impression that it almost passed, and then they tried to sneak it in again?
These posts. Are. Absolute. Bullshit.
Lies. Propaganda. Ignorance.
This is a first row seat of watching a victim of misinformation become the regurgitating propagandist, doing others' work for them.
The FCC has been the agency of legal enforcement pushing the principles of net neutrality for the entirety of its history. Even with broadband infrastructure, the FCC in 2004 with a republican chairman proposed four major principles. Those were legally enforced by the Bush administration starting in 2005 and were eventually codified, actively providing Americans with legally binding net neutrality well before Title II of the Telecommunications Act was brought in. Those regulations were continued through the Obama administration. In 2012, ISPs started failing to maintain their ports, leading to Netflix customers unnecessarily suffering frequent buffering, while ISPs expected to be paid by content providing companies like Netflix to alleviate the issue. In 2015, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the argument that those services were failing to provide the service that Title II required then to, legally solidifying what had been enforced by the FCC for a decade.
I legitimately don't believe you. Your posts appear to intentionally diminish the radical changes to the FCC imposed under this administration. Claiming the protections never existed is blatantly wrong and misleading when there are decades of precedent when the committee restricted predatory practice and abuse of Telecommunications companies from the 70s to ISPs throughout the last 15 years.
Normalizing or legitimizing this move using those misleading taking points serves as a justification and defense for what is happening.
You can move your goal posts and let your stance slowly evolve through this thread, but the garishly ugly statements you made were pretty clear in their intent.
In my wife's country she has to use Whatsapp to send pictures because anything else is too expensive. Even if he's friends on Facebook he has to ask her to download a picture from a mutual friend and send it via Whatsapp. Welcome to net neutrality.
I was responding to someone who suggested they always existed, which is false. I didn't say they never existed in any form, but that they didn't always exist, and they were constantly challenged by court rulings until codified into law.
Also you clearly missed my intent, which was aimed at someone who ended up banned, but you did play right into it.
They already do it with free cable channels you can get over OTA, they charge random ass fees for using their service, and charge you to rent a modem even after youve paid enough to cover the cost of it.
Comcast tried to change their name to Xfinity because people hate the word Comcast.
Spectrum supposedly raised their prices on internet already too, another company that changed their name because people ate Time Warner.
Have you never heard of throttling? Also how its used against websites unless they pay up?
Gave my conservative co-horts (here in NW-Arkansas I'm one of the few lefties in my small town) the rundown on the end of net neutrality, and they're pretty angry it happened. So I let them know all about their politicians views on it (see Tom Cotton and John Boozeman) and it was an oh well, except for the one business owner who is my boss.
We're in troubled waters, and I'm just hoping the ISP's don't screw it all up for the sake of the stock holders.
We're in troubled waters, and I'm just hoping the ISP's don't screw it all up for the sake of the stock holders.
That's unfortunate. I was reading this & got happy to hear they were angry, but them quickly becoming complacent is disappointing; I was hoping they'd have some conviction about this if they were upset, you know? At least they know now. You can't be to blame by their continued inaction. Maybe they'll be upset when the effects start to reach them?
A few of them started saying they'd like our little city to have it's own internet: nope that dream died in 2011 with a passing of a state amendment.
I have to run a Cox business connection at home (unlimited at 50u10d), my wife telecommutes to PHX, and I run the operations side of the business from home most days.
I doubt Cox would mess around with a business connection too much, but who really knows. If my company has to pay more to be visible, well we'll do it, but we sure won't like it.
This is a common talking point on the right, but it's not true. The internet was practically born on phone lines and phone lines were grandfathered into net neutrality (and more) because of antitrust laws targeting telecoms. Because Bush won the election at the time, his FCC had the opportunity to have those regulations continue as the internet moved to cable and fiber (where those regulations didn't apply), but they chose not to.
so I guess most of the North will be fine while the south gets fucking obliterated with the ISP's bullshit.
Why would this happen? I haven't read the entire thread mind you. I'm just not understanding why the south would get railed.
Fox news pays for faster speeds, a more unbiased network can't afford that same contract so their speeds are reduced.
More people start going to fox news because it's faster and fake news runs rampant...
That's a grim but plausible scenario in a non net neutrality world.
That and it will make it even harder for new websites to actually gain traction because even if my youtube-like website is better and has better UI/search algorithms. YouTube can actually afford the bump up in speed that I cannot.
There's many reasons this will suck. Hell resetera could become slower because Reddit/Twitter buy all the bandwidth allocated for forums...It's gonna be just like cable TV if this shit doesn't get retracted and fast.
Anyone who has the briefest of knowledge on past ISP behavior knows you're in for a rough time. When the past FCC director Tom Wheeler set up some consumer protections the ISPs were already fucking around with surcharges, throttling and zero rate plans. This was under a Democratic administration. So no, the "incoming blue wave" isn't going to deter this bullshit from happening. The issues behind Net Neutrality are very real, and about to land on your head, very hard. This is a gift to the current incumbents, just like everything else this administration is doing right now for corporations.
This is also worth a read, as the Net Neutrality rules are still in effect, for some odd reason.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...lity-repeal-and-the-delay-might-be-strategic/
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...lity-repeal-and-the-delay-might-be-strategic/
The internet was born with net neutrality and there was a relatively small window without it. Your point wasn't good. And you got the year wrong -- it was in 2005, a time where only a third of US households had broadband, when the FCC started trying to enforce net neutrality style rules. That remained the case through 2014, when Verizon vs FCC happened -- which was addressed in 2015.
The idea that the internet has been fine without net neutrality all this time is just not true at all because the internet, since its very inception, did have net neutrality style rules in place with a few short-lived exceptions.
