Net Neutrality

[flywise]

Plenty of evidence of when the gov. starts medaling in something it is much worse off.
Hundreds of smart people will tell you that this Net Neutrality hurts not only the internet as you know it, but the consumer in the end.

[flywise]

https://www.dailywire.com/news/24691/breaking-net-neutrality-repealed-left-loses-its-ben-shapiro

[banzai]

Plenty of evidence of when the gov. starts medaling in something it is much worse off.
Hundreds of smart people will tell you that this Net Neutrality hurts not only the internet as you know it, but the consumer in the end.

Net Neutrality treated the internet like a traditionally regulated utility like the old phone company, Ma Bell. It forced all participants to adhere to federal regulations that are tailored to a 2013 level of technology. These rules do not apply to new technologies that are trying to break into the market, and so it will discourage investment and development of new technologies by adding extra cost for no return. That is why Net Neutrality was good for the federal government (taxes, control) and current 800 pound gorillas (AT&T, Comcast, Spectrum, Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc).

Net Neutrality was designed by lobbyists, Tech CEO's , and legislators, to prevent new game-changing technology from appearing and making current tech obsolete. What if two people in a garage invented something that made fiber optic internet transmission of data that is currently the hot set-up, look slow and old-fashioned? The new company would be the new favorite and the old giants would be struggling to catch up. With Net Neutrality rules in place, small companies must follow the federal rules (spend huge money) in order to be in business even though those rules don't apply to the new tech. New start-up companies cannot afford these added costs, so new tech is killed before it can change the world. Investors don't want to spend the millions required by fed regulations just to release one new tech widget hoping it that will sell. If it only takes a few thousand dollars to test release a technology, investors will pay for many more to be produced and it will be a wild west of invention and investment.

If one invention hits big and changes the tech world dynamic (like untraceable international satellite streaming with terabyte data for pennies) all the old companies are running for their lives, the consumer wins and the 800 pound gorillas lose. Net Neutrality is designed to prevent this.

Think about the world changing tech that was brought to the market from the start of the internet around 1994 through 2012. There were many new names and small companies hitting home runs, creating stuff that was not imagined even a few years earlier. After 2013, isn't everything new coming from a giant tech company? Wonder why.

[Playa]

My issue with Net neuter is that as content become more and more streaming, the internet pipe providers are largely cable companies (Verizon, cox, Comcast etc). This means they can control their operating cost while strangling their competition

[thegrouse]

My issue with Net neuter is that as content become more and more streaming, the internet pipe providers are largely cable companies (Verizon, cox, Comcast etc). This means they can control their operating cost while strangling their competition

Which is where an innovative company comes in with satellite or the equivalent and makes billions making the traditional broadband a thing of the past.

[flywise]

Net Neutrality treated the internet like a traditionally regulated utility like the old phone company, Ma Bell. It forced all participants to adhere to federal regulations that are tailored to a 2013 level of technology. These rules do not apply to new technologies that are trying to break into the market, and so it will discourage investment and development of new technologies by adding extra cost for no return. That is why Net Neutrality was good for the federal government (taxes, control) and current 800 pound gorillas (AT&T, Comcast, Spectrum, Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc).

Net Neutrality was designed by lobbyists, Tech CEO's , and legislators, to prevent new game-changing technology from appearing and making current tech obsolete. What if two people in a garage invented something that made fiber optic internet transmission of data that is currently the hot set-up, look slow and old-fashioned? The new company would be the new favorite and the old giants would be struggling to catch up. With Net Neutrality rules in place, small companies must follow the federal rules (spend huge money) in order to be in business even though those rules don't apply to the new tech. New start-up companies cannot afford these added costs, so new tech is killed before it can change the world. Investors don't want to spend the millions required by fed regulations just to release one new tech widget hoping it that will sell. If it only takes a few thousand dollars to test release a technology, investors will pay for many more to be produced and it will be a wild west of invention and investment.

If one invention hits big and changes the tech world dynamic (like untraceable international satellite streaming with terabyte data for pennies) all the old companies are running for their lives, the consumer wins and the 800 pound gorillas lose. Net Neutrality is designed to prevent this.

Think about the world changing tech that was brought to the market from the start of the internet around 1994 through 2012. There were many new names and small companies hitting home runs, creating stuff that was not imagined even a few years earlier. After 2013, isn't everything new coming from a giant tech company? Wonder why.

^^^^^^^^

It's like liberal professors and the media perpetuating the myth that Trump is a racist wanting the return of the MOM
Most folks take their word as gospel and run with it.

[Vermin93]

Net Neutrality

Net Neutrality treated the internet like a traditionally regulated utility like the old phone company, Ma Bell. It forced all participants to adhere to federal regulations that are tailored to a 2013 level of technology. These rules do not apply to new technologies that are trying to break into the market, and so it will discourage investment and development of new technologies by adding extra cost for no return. That is why Net Neutrality was good for the federal government (taxes, control) and current 800 pound gorillas (AT&T, Comcast, Spectrum, Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc).



Net Neutrality was designed by lobbyists, Tech CEO's , and legislators, to prevent new game-changing technology from appearing and making current tech obsolete. What if two people in a garage invented something that made fiber optic internet transmission of data that is currently the hot set-up, look slow and old-fashioned? The new company would be the new favorite and the old giants would be struggling to catch up. With Net Neutrality rules in place, small companies must follow the federal rules (spend huge money) in order to be in business even though those rules don't apply to the new tech. New start-up companies cannot afford these added costs, so new tech is killed before it can change the world. Investors don't want to spend the millions required by fed regulations just to release one new tech widget hoping it that will sell. If it only takes a few thousand dollars to test release a technology, investors will pay for many more to be produced and it will be a wild west of invention and investment.



If one invention hits big and changes the tech world dynamic (like untraceable international satellite streaming with terabyte data for pennies) all the old companies are running for their lives, the consumer wins and the 800 pound gorillas lose. Net Neutrality is designed to prevent this.



Think about the world changing tech that was brought to the market from the start of the internet around 1994 through 2012. There were many new names and small companies hitting home runs, creating stuff that was not imagined even a few years earlier. After 2013, isn't everything new coming from a giant tech company? Wonder why.

That is not an accurate assessment. In fact, it’s close to being 180 degrees from reality.

Net Neutrality has always been opposed by the likes of AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and the NCTA, which is the trade group representing incumbent broadband service providers. They have spent millions lobbying against it, and today they are celebrating its reversal.

Also, that Mark Cuban video is a terrible reference.

[Vermin93]

This is exactly the reason why it was killed. Like it or not, Net Neutrality was one of the good things to come out of that administration. To kill it only further empowers the Internet Service Providers and will strain businesses like SlingTV, Netflix, Hulu and other online-only streaming content providers. This was a big win for big business and establishment cable providers. If you were ever looking to cut the chord on cable, this just made it that much harder.

Glad to see someone here understands the issue.

[banzai]

That is not an accurate assessment. In fact, it’s close to being 180 degrees from reality.

Net Neutrality has always been opposed by the likes of AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and the NCTA, which is the trade group representing incumbent broadband service providers. They have spent millions lobbying against it, and today they are celebrating its reversal.

Also, that Mark Cuban video is a terrible reference.

The Mark Cuban video is not my reference. The big corporation statements that wish NN was still alive are a lie.

The public statements of Comcast and others in support of NN are focused on current offering and current pricing conditions so they appear to be oriented 180 degrees from my statements. They do not address my statements regarding their position to resist totally new and now unknown technologies.

This is a smoke screen to confuse the non-technical readers who do not look past their own current data plan bills and who going to raise today's bills on whom. They don't know that just a few years ago, a few guys that understood computing could revolutionize daily life with a new technology,and hopefully they would not get sucked in by the long arms of the US Government. The ones big companies want consumers focused on today's issues to confuse them. Look beyond today, this year, and next year.

Current support vs not support discussions from the large corporations only refers to current technology and potential pricing actions in the today context. All current consumer technology is old and obsolete. It does not matter. That is why it is for sale to the mass consumers. That is not the main issue driving the departure from NN. Jai knows the invention killing power of NN and he is stopping it. I hope he survives.

None of the large corporation talking points will refer to existing, but now not widely known new technologies that will potentially make everything we now know, be obsolete. Those new inventions are the big threat to to current hierarchy. Those are the real reasons why big corporations resist the change from the NN that they purchased from Obama.

There is Black Swan tech ready to be released to industry that will return tech advances to their previous advancement rate like the 1990's pace, but it has been held back because they would not sell to a big corp and/or they could not get enough cash to fulfill all the NN requirements. Big corps that been buying them out (and hiding them) and fed regulations that discourage investement have been preventing release to the market. Watch and see over the next few years.

Either way, send me a PM and meet me in Austin and I'll buy you a good steak and some good drinks. I like spending time people who discuss current events.

[flywise]

Glad to see someone here understands the issue.

What was wrong with the internet before NN?
As you understand it, why did Obama slid this in before he left?

[Vermin93]

The Mark Cuban video is not my reference. The big corporation statements that wish NN was still alive are a lie.



The public statements of Comcast and others in support of NN are focused on current offering and current pricing conditions so they appear to be oriented 180 degrees from my statements. They do not address my statements regarding their position to resist totally new and now unknown technologies.



This is a smoke screen to confuse the non-technical readers who do not look past their own current data plan bills and who going to raise today's bills on whom. They don't know that just a few years ago, a few guys that understood computing could revolutionize daily life with a new technology,and hopefully they would not get sucked in by the long arms of the US Government. The ones big companies want consumers focused on today's issues to confuse them. Look beyond today, this year, and next year.



Current support vs not support discussions from the large corporations only refers to current technology and potential pricing actions in the today context. All current consumer technology is old and obsolete. It does not matter. That is why it is for sale to the mass consumers. That is not the main issue driving the departure from NN. Jai knows the invention killing power of NN and he is stopping it. I hope he survives.



None of the large corporation talking points will refer to existing, but now not widely known new technologies that will potentially make everything we now know, be obsolete. Those new inventions are the big threat to to current hierarchy. Those are the real reasons why big corporations resist the change from the NN that they purchased from Obama.



There is Black Swan tech ready to be released to industry that will return tech advances to their previous advancement rate like the 1990's pace, but it has been held back because they would not sell to a big corp and/or they could not get enough cash to fulfill all the NN requirements. Big corps that been buying them out (and hiding them) and fed regulations that discourage investement have been preventing release to the market. Watch and see over the next few years.



Either way, send me a PM and meet me in Austin and I'll buy you a good steak and some good drinks. I like spending time people who discuss current events.

Again...the primary incumbent broadband service providers (Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, Frontier, etc) have not supported the Obama admins’s NN. In fact, Comcast has probably been the biggest corporate opponent to that rendition of NN. They’ve spent millions lobbying for Pai’s FCC decision, and they made that clear again this week with their public statement on the decision. You have half the actors wrong in your review.

“We commend Chairman Pai for his leadership and FCC Commissioners O’Rielly and Carr for their support in adopting the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, returning to a regulatory environment that allowed the Internet to thrive for decades by eliminating burdensome Title II regulations and opening the door for increased investment and digital innovation. Today’s action does not mark the ‘end of the Internet as we know it;’ rather it heralds in a new era of light regulation that will benefit consumers.”

[JonBoy]

What was wrong with the internet before NN?
As you understand it, why did Obama slid this in before he left?

Before NN, ISPs were figuring out that they could affect the online market by speeding up/slowing down or choking off access altogether to sites & content that negatively impacted their business model. Many ISPs (namely Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, etc.) have a vested interest in keeping companies such as Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, from competing with both their cable TV business and online streaming businesses and prior to NN could intentionally slow down access to those sites & content. It is the ISPs hope that the user, frustrated with slow access, constant buffering and lag from those sites would abandon those services and "come back home to cable".

If ISPs didn't control the actual internet infrastructure and were competing solely based on content alone I would have no problem with letting the market work itself out. But that's not the case here. Instead, what we have are a select few gigantic companies who hold the keys to your ability to log online. Without some set of rules in place that tells the ISPs that once they unlock the doors, where you go online is your business, then they can shape your internet experience however they see fit...and worse yet you will probably be unaware that it's even happening.

The NN rules were set in place in February of 2015...a full year and a half before the election and 2 years before he left office (exactly halfway through his second term) so I wouldn't quite couch this as sliding it in as he left

[JonBoy]

Again...the primary incumbent broadband service providers (Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, Frontier, etc) have not supported the Obama admins’s NN. In fact, Comcast has probably been the biggest corporate opponent to that rendition of NN. They’ve spent millions lobbying for Pai’s FCC decision, and they made that clear again this week with their public statement on the decision. You have half the actors wrong in your review.

“We commend Chairman Pai for his leadership and FCC Commissioners O’Rielly and Carr for their support in adopting the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, returning to a regulatory environment that allowed the Internet to thrive for decades by eliminating burdensome Title II regulations and opening the door for increased investment and digital innovation. Today’s action does not mark the ‘end of the Internet as we know it;’ rather it heralds in a new era of light regulation that will benefit consumers.”

To be fair, Comcast has been talking out of both sides of their mouth for quite sometime. They have publicly declared support FOR NN while in the background lobbying with millions of dollars AGAINST NN. It was clear what their real intentions were when they started throwing their money around.

[JonBoy]

Net Neutrality treated the internet like a traditionally regulated utility like the old phone company, Ma Bell. It forced all participants to adhere to federal regulations that are tailored to a 2013 level of technology. These rules do not apply to new technologies that are trying to break into the market, and so it will discourage investment and development of new technologies by adding extra cost for no return. That is why Net Neutrality was good for the federal government (taxes, control) and current 800 pound gorillas (AT&T, Comcast, Spectrum, Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc).

Net Neutrality was designed by lobbyists, Tech CEO's , and legislators, to prevent new game-changing technology from appearing and making current tech obsolete. What if two people in a garage invented something that made fiber optic internet transmission of data that is currently the hot set-up, look slow and old-fashioned? The new company would be the new favorite and the old giants would be struggling to catch up. With Net Neutrality rules in place, small companies must follow the federal rules (spend huge money) in order to be in business even though those rules don't apply to the new tech. New start-up companies cannot afford these added costs, so new tech is killed before it can change the world. Investors don't want to spend the millions required by fed regulations just to release one new tech widget hoping it that will sell. If it only takes a few thousand dollars to test release a technology, investors will pay for many more to be produced and it will be a wild west of invention and investment.

If one invention hits big and changes the tech world dynamic (like untraceable international satellite streaming with terabyte data for pennies) all the old companies are running for their lives, the consumer wins and the 800 pound gorillas lose. Net Neutrality is designed to prevent this.

Think about the world changing tech that was brought to the market from the start of the internet around 1994 through 2012. There were many new names and small companies hitting home runs, creating stuff that was not imagined even a few years earlier. After 2013, isn't everything new coming from a giant tech company? Wonder why.

I would really like to know what source you're citing for this because in 2015 the only thing the FCC did was reclassify broadband as a common carrier under Title II of the Communications Act. This was in response to a 2014 court decision that said the FCC had no authority to enforce (already existing) NN rules as long as ISPs were not identified as common carriers. However the court agreed that the FCC could reclassify broadband as a common carrier and at that point could regulate it.

To your point about NN stifling tech invention let me pose a hypothetical. Say two people in a garage invented something that made fiber optic internet transmission of data that is currently the hot set-up, look slow and old-fashioned. In comes Comcast and sees this as a threat to their market. They do some back-of-the-napkin calculations and decide that it's cheaper to sick their legal team on the two guys the minute those guys try to hook into their infrastructure than it would be to buy them out and modify their own infrastructure to accept the new tech, or better yet, tie the two guys up in court for decades holding up those two guys' attempt at trying to build out their own network. If you think it hasn't happened before, think again: https://www.theverge.com/2015/5/1/85...ternet-gigabit. Thankfully in this article, under (then) NN rules, Comcast lost and was forced to modify their service offerings to stay competitive thus giving consumers more choice.

The truth is, giant telecoms will not allow the small guy to even dip a toe into their market. They have enough money, power and now backing of the FCC to pretty much do whatever they want.

[Man]

Ok I did a lot of searching and reviewing on this yesterday after my initial post. My opinion is that this was a good decision for the free market economy (to kill NN). The government did not need to step in and force company's who own the ISP's to provide equality despite use. Now that this has been removed it will allow the ISP's to charge per usage and allow competition once again and the drive for new company's to innovate and find cheaper ways to provide using updated technology instead of the technology currently used buy these ISP's. My .02cents