Net Neutrality Dead in the US? 7 replies

Please wait...

Nittany Tiger Forum Mod

*Shrug*

289,107 XP

15th September 2004

0 Uploads

27,136 Posts

0 Threads

#1 1 year ago

On the 18th of May, the FCC voted 2 - 1 to repeal Net Neutrality, no doubt opening lots of doors for corporate exploitation of the internet and the pay-to-win system we all feared.  FCC Chairman and corporate shill Ajit Pai repeatedly states that repealing net neutrality would open the internet to unprecedented freedom and that the internet fared better without "government micromanagement," failing to realize that ISPs had not tried to cut business deals to give certain companies priority traffic and throttle competitors and that a free internet actually thrived under a Title II classification.  Basically, the only freedoms that a Title I classification will expand is those of corporate executives.  As seen and expected in the Trump administration, the US government is, more than ever, determined to act against the will of the people and in the interest of big money, and it's appalling to see my republic misrepresent its own constituents for money.

Now I don't know if this is the death nail for net neutrality or not, but it is a bad sign of things to come.  I've personally written e-mails to both of my senators urging for them to stop Pai's destruction of internet freedom, but that's only if they have the power and will to do so.  They may not have the authority to overturn FCC rulings, but they may, and it doesn't hurt to try.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/05/18/528941897/fcc-votes-to-begin-rollback-of-net-neutrality-regulations

https://www.cnet.com/news/13-things-you-need-to-know-about-the-fccs-net-neutrality-regulation/

https://www.cnet.com/news/fcc-net-neutrality-rules-ajit-pai-trump-regulations-comcast/

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-39973787

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/04/net-neutrality-rules-took-away-your-internet-freedom-fcc-chair-claims/




Mikey Über Admin

Caffiene Fuelled Ravings of an undiagnosed Sociopath.

45,853 XP

13th June 2008

1 Uploads

3,877 Posts

217 Threads

#2 1 year ago

Well I guess this sums it up nicely.


Mikey - GameFront.com - Lead Developer



Serio VIP Member

The Dane

149,931 XP

11th November 2006

3 Uploads

12,511 Posts

38 Threads

#3 1 year ago
"Mikey"Well I guess this sums it up nicely.

Not quite. You're not - in any way - affected by these rules. Nor am I, for that matter.

(I don't know if you were just joking, sopleasedon'thitme)

For those that don't know what net neutrality means, it's essentially the concept that all data is created equal. A neutral web will treat all data, whether it's coming from Netflix, Amazon, or FilesNation, the exact same. It will all receive the same priority. 

What this scrapping does is allow ISP's to cut deals with, for instance, Amazon to slow down Netflix on their connections, thus encouraging customers to move over to Amazon's services.

It's ironic, really. Mr. Pai claims this will provide "unprecedented freedom", but it will actually have the absolute inverse effect.

Rather appropriate that his name sounds like "A Shit Pie".




FileTrekker Über Admin

I'm spending a year dead for tax reasons.

269,293 XP

15th December 2002

85 Uploads

22,518 Posts

1,747 Threads

#4 1 year ago

The good thing about living in the UK is we at least have some level of competition, so we have things like 200mb speeds, without bandwidth caps, and no sort of threats of throttling or things like that.

The reason why this is even a subject in America IMO is the severe lack of competition in most states.

One provider has a monopoly over an area In a lot of cases. In states with competition, this seems less of an issue.


Danny King | Community Manager | GameFront.com



Serio VIP Member

The Dane

149,931 XP

11th November 2006

3 Uploads

12,511 Posts

38 Threads

#5 1 year ago

The majority of providers in Denmark dropped bandwidth caps as they became obsolete. They used to serve a purpose, but now they're pointless in most of the developed world.

But even then, I'm absolutely certain there's a law prohibiting preferential treatment of websites in the UK, or indeed the EU.




Mr. Matt VIP Member

#BanRadioActiveLobster

356,406 XP

17th June 2002

7 Uploads

33,654 Posts

779 Threads

#6 1 year ago

"FileTrekker"The good thing about living in the UK is we at least have some level of competition, so we have things like 200mb speeds, without bandwidth caps, and no sort of threats of throttling or things like that.

The reason why this is even a subject in America IMO is the severe lack of competition in most states.

One provider has a monopoly over an area In a lot of cases. In states with competition, this seems less of an issue.

Things aren't all that different in the UK. While we have myriad service providers, they're nearly all beholden to one of two networks - BT or Virgin. However much ISP competition there is, the lowest price is never going to dip below whatever the current wholesale connectivity prices are, and the highest speed is never going to go above what either of those networks is able to offer. I believe 300Mbps is the highest speed available to most home users in the UK at the moment, unless you live in certain areas of one of the 'Big Three' cities.

And I very much doubt that we're immune to the concept of preferential data treatment, it would just be harder to pull off here using legal methods. At least until Brexit happens, as current net neutrality laws are governed by the EU, and there's no guarantee that we will keep them...




FileTrekker Über Admin

I'm spending a year dead for tax reasons.

269,293 XP

15th December 2002

85 Uploads

22,518 Posts

1,747 Threads

#7 1 year ago

"Mr. Matt"Things aren't all that different in the UK. While we have myriad service providers, they're nearly all beholden to one of two networks - BT or Virgin. However much ISP competition there is, the lowest price is never going to dip below whatever the current wholesale connectivity prices are, and the highest speed is never going to go above what either of those networks is able to offer. I believe 300Mbps is the highest speed available to most home users in the UK at the moment, unless you live in certain areas of one of the 'Big Three' cities.

And I very much doubt that we're immune to the concept of preferential data treatment, it would just be harder to pull off here using legal methods. At least until Brexit happens, as current net neutrality laws are governed by the EU, and there's no guarantee that we will keep them...

You're right to a degree, but at least we have two main infrastructure providers in most areas, which does help to regulate wholesale costs, most US states don't have that luxury. Additionally, we have regulations that prevent BT Openreach in charging unfair prices for access to copper phone lines and to keep equipment in exchanges, so they can't leverage a monopoly over their own infrastructure. Some Americans would no doubt call this borderline communist.

We're definitely not immune though, given how our current government wants to outright ban access to online porn and whatever else. It is though, as you say, at the very least harder to do here.


Danny King | Community Manager | GameFront.com



Nittany Tiger Forum Mod

*Shrug*

289,107 XP

15th September 2004

0 Uploads

27,136 Posts

0 Threads

#8 1 year ago

"FileTrekker"The good thing about living in the UK is we at least have some level of competition, so we have things like 200mb speeds, without bandwidth caps, and no sort of threats of throttling or things like that.

The reason why this is even a subject in America IMO is the severe lack of competition in most states.

One provider has a monopoly over an area In a lot of cases. In states with competition, this seems less of an issue.

Regional natural monopolies are the fault of the government being too laissez faire with ISPs, and they look to go further.  The natural progression of markets are towards oligopolies and monopolies.  This is economics 101, but something Republicans ignore due to their obsession with deregulation and capitalism.  There's nothing wrong with private ISPs, but letting them do what they want means that they will eventually go too far in securing maximum profits.  That's what the FCC is supposed to protect against, but it's hard for them to do their job when they are run by Reganomics Republicans appointed by a CEO who made a C in basic economics.

And ironically, the more big companies grow and consolidate, the more they police the internet for their own interests and the interest of clients, so the internet becomes no different than if it was under heavy government regulation, except what we get to see and who gets preferential treatment is whoever are friends with the ISPs, not the government.

I sincerely hope this reclassification is stopped because this is not freedom for anyone but corporate executives, which is what seems to be Trump's plan for the US.  Furthermore, this is something that many US citizens do not want since they know it will result in higher costs for them and an internet hostile to small businesses and startups.  The FCC flat-out ignoring pro-net neutrality comments shows that the FCC is ignoring the will of the people.  I know we're a republic, but people are still supposed to have a voice in the government's actions and behavior.

Anyway, we need to split up the ISPs.  That will bring on competition among them.  That will drive prices down and spur innovation.  Honestly, net neutrality is not the cause of the US's sorry state of internet infrastructure and it's really only an issue because ISPs want to destroy it to make more money without innovating anything.  You can almost classify it as rent-seeking behavior.  No-one believes it's causing ISPs to monopolize since that would happen anyway.