Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 14th Dec 2017 19:46 UTC
Legal

Net neutrality is dead - at least for now. In a 3-2 vote today, the Federal Communications Commission approved a measure to remove the tough net neutrality rules it put in place just two years ago. Those rules prevented internet providers from blocking and throttling traffic and offering paid fast lanes. They also classified internet providers as Title II common carriers in order to give the measure strong legal backing.

Today's vote undoes all of that. It removes the Title II designation, preventing the FCC from putting tough net neutrality rules in place even if it wanted to. And, it turns out, the Republicans now in charge of the FCC really don’t want to. The new rules largely don’t prevent internet providers from doing anything. They can block, throttle, and prioritize content if they wish to. The only real rule is that they have to publicly state that they’re going to do it.

Nobody wanted the FCC to vote like this. Public support for net neutrality is massive. The only reason this is happening is pure, unbridled corruption at the very root of the American political system.

E-mail Print r 12   67 Comment(s)
Thread beginning with comment 652080
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Anothe side of this
by Metrol on Fri 15th Dec 2017 21:46 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Anothe side of this"
Metrol
Member since:
2009-01-24

The problem with ajit pai is that he just wants to repeal net neutrality without increasing competition, he hasn't outlined any policies that would do so.


But that isn't the role of government. There is no "policy" that can force competition to happen. Government does have a valuable role in being a hopefully impartial referee in matters.

Only way that competition happens, in any industry, is someone out there sees a need that isn't being fulfilled and does so. That can only happen if the barrier to that market isn't blocked off.

Look at all the legal hoops that Tesla has had to jump through because of all the regulations put in place to protect consumers from car manufacturers. It's genuinely crazy that a mfg can't see directly to a consumer. At the time, those laws made sense for a lot of reasons. Now, they've stifled who can make and sell this product.

I honestly don't know of NN is a good or bad thing. I guess it comes down to a choice of which flavor of corruption you prefer, the corporations trying to make a buck or the politicians they paid for. I have to admit, I tend to side with the corporations since they can be competed with. Can't compete with the government once they step in.

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE[5]: Anothe side of this
by Alfman on Fri 15th Dec 2017 22:36 in reply to "RE[4]: Anothe side of this"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Metrol,

But that isn't the role of government. There is no "policy" that can force competition to happen. Government does have a valuable role in being a hopefully impartial referee in matters.



You should be concerned because ajit pai is anything but impartial. The very essence of net neutrality was to squash favoritism at the packet level. The elimination of net neutrality gives companies the full right to track our packets using deep packet inspection for the purpose of treating our data partially. In other words if you are truly for impartiality on the internet, then logically you should be for net neutrality.


I know that when it comes to politics, there is much dislike/distrust for government and sometimes those with this philosophy tend to speak against government policies - even those that may be good for the interests of consumers. Does this fairly describe you?


I honestly don't know of NN is a good or bad thing. I guess it comes down to a choice of which flavor of corruption you prefer, the corporations trying to make a buck or the politicians they paid for. I have to admit, I tend to side with the corporations since they can be competed with. Can't compete with the government once they step in.


Well sure, both government and powerful corporations can take away public consumer freedoms. So I do understand that. However in the case of net neutrality, the government was protecting the consumer freedom to use their own bandwidth as they see fit. Siding with corporations on this issue kind of implies that corporations should be free to dictate our use of bandwidth, and that consumer freedom of choice does not matter.

Edited 2017-12-15 22:53 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[5]: Anothe side of this
by kwan_e on Fri 15th Dec 2017 23:42 in reply to "RE[4]: Anothe side of this"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

But that isn't the role of government. There is no "policy" that can force competition to happen.


Yes there is. Break up the large corporations. Forbid mergers or buyouts. Plenty of stuff when the government isn't scared of corporate money, and scared of real people. And when the people aren't scared of corporate money.

Look at all the legal hoops that Tesla has had to jump through because of all the regulations put in place to protect consumers from car manufacturers. It's genuinely crazy that a mfg can't see directly to a consumer. At the time, those laws made sense for a lot of reasons. Now, they've stifled who can make and sell this product.


The government should have broken up those car manufacturers too.

I tend to side with the corporations since they can be competed with.


What fantasy world do you live in?

Can't compete with the government once they step in.


It's actually much easier to compete with the government. Why do you think corporations spend so much money trying to prevent competition?

The only reason why the government in the US is a big problem is because it is just an arm of the corporations. It's people like you who have failed to exercise your voting power properly that the government has turned into the thing you hate.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[5]: Anothe side of this
by zima on Sat 16th Dec 2017 23:29 in reply to "RE[4]: Anothe side of this"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

But that isn't the role of government. There is no "policy" that can force competition to happen.

Of course it is one of the roles of gov; at my place competition was introduced by stern measures to disband monopoly...

Reply Parent Score: 3