Home - , , , - FCC Decides to Repeal Net Neutrality Regulations with 3-2 Vote

FCC Decides to Repeal Net Neutrality Regulations with 3-2 Vote

fcc-net-neutrality-repeal-vote
It's a sad and disappointing day for many as the results of the Federal Communications Commission vote come in. And while the results are disheartening, it really isn't a big surprise to many who have already expected it. Particularly, this decision comes as a win for internet service providers (ISPs) like Comcast and Verizon, who had long been against net neutrality rules.

Earlier today, the FCC voted 3-2 in favor of repealing net neutrality regulations. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai led the vote, which ultimately won the support of Commissioners Michael O'Reilly and Brendan Carr; both of whom are Republicans. And as an end result, the decision was made with the three Republicans voting for repealing the regulation and only two Democrats voting against it.

Up until the vote was cast, Pai continued to insist that the existing rules were a heavy burden to businesses. And as a result of this burden, it caused reduced investment on different internet services. The FCC Commissioner believed that the Federal Trade Commission should protect consumers from abuses from the corporate world and that the industry should be the one to regulate itself. This notion, however, is a far cry from what many believe.

Those against the decision of repealing net neutrality believe that once the regulations would be taken away, a fragmented system would be created. This would also give ISPs power to slow down information or block websites for companies or people who cannot pay. Most importantly, getting rid of net neutrality regulations would hamper the first amendment since ISPs can easily block any information they don't want to be publicized.

This is the very reason why the Democratic Commissioners who voted against repealing net neutrality believe that today's decision puts the FCC "on the wrong side of history, the law, and the American public."

On her rebuttal to Pai, Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel promised that despite today's decision, she is not stopping the fight; as other Americans promised to do so too. Prior to the decision, millions sent in a comment to the FCC in the hopes of deciding to keep net neutrality. But these comments were ignored by the Commissioners who voted to repeal it.

The fight, however, is not yet over. Both the ACLU and FreePress.net  have promised to dispute today's decision by coursing through legal actions. As for consumers, there's no word yet on how quickly this change will be put into effect by the FCC. Guess we'll have to see what happens next.



Source: Phone Scoop

118 comments:

Comment Page :
  1. it is said Pai used to be a Verizon lawyer! figures.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's 100% true. And it is said that he stands to profit from this repeal.

      Delete
    2. "it is said that he stands to profit from this repeal."

      Passive voice with no specifics doesn't cut it for this accusation.
      Who said it? What are the facts? Any evidence?
      Pai is a Federal employee, subject to Federal ethics rules. For example, he like other Federal employees cannot own stock in companies of the industry FCC regulates, because he is personally and substantially involved in matters the affect those companies. His Ethics Officer gets a statement from him every year listing his specific investments, and tells him what he has to sell to avoid conflicts of interest and even the appearance of conflicts of interest.

      So tell us: How will Pai profit from repeal of Net Neutrality?
      You read it on some blog?

      Delete
    3. "So tell us: How will Pai profit from repeal of Net Neutrality?
      You read it on some blog?"

      Pai will likely be out of the position within a couple of years, and back in Verizon, peddling his triumphant experience and influence.

      You know the golden rule: those who make the rules get the gold.

      Delete
    4. Pai will profit!
      & I'm with #RoadGuy
      Just deal with it.

      Delete
    5. Pai is the Grand Nagus of telecom.

      Delete
  2. I'm glad the FCC finally killed 'Net Neutrality.' Heavy Government regulation rarely solves problems, and it creates many unintended negative consequences. Regulation of Ma Bell have us black dial phones for more than 30 years - then we finally got beige wired phones with push buttons.
    Now industry can make investment decisions for several years without worrying about the risk of evolving whims of FCC commissioners wiping out expensive service offerings after the money is spent. Time to celebrate!
    Most opposition was based on more 'worst-case' fear mongering and propaganda. And the vast majority of the "millions of public comments" were identical, submitted by people who were either too uninformed or lazy to develop their own thoughts. So it's a good thing these comments were discounted.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You rank right up there with Pai in my book!

      Delete
    2. Couldn't agree more. As someone who grew up under communist regime, I can't figure out why so many people in the free world prefer the monopoly of government, with inevitability of cronyism, over competition of free market. It boggles my mind.

      Delete
    3. How much do tele-companies pay you?

      Delete
    4. So private sector monopoly is better how, exactly?

      Delete
    5. NO actual competition in ISPs where I live. Two overpriced options that are slower and more expensive than other developed countries in the world. I submitted a comment against the repeal of Net Neutrality and it was in my own words.

      Delete
    6. How would Net Neutrality have convinced more ISPs to invest in your area?
      Isn't that more likely with less intrusive regulation and business risk?

      Delete
    7. "How would Net Neutrality have convinced more ISPs to invest in your area?
      Isn't that more likely with less intrusive regulation and business risk?"

      If Net Neutrality blocked some nasty ISP that would charge extra for Netflix from coming into being, then we are better off without such "more ISPs"

      Delete
    8. I would rather have the extra ISPs even if they block Netflix. Extra competition would lower prices. And the public would raise ‘heck’ and pressure nasty ISPs to unblock Netflix. FTC will act when the public complains. That is the new internet world order. Adapt and enjoy the savings opportunities. I would love to get a big discount in exchange for restricted or throttled streaming.

      Delete
    9. "NO actual competition in ISPs where I live."

      That's because current regulation prohibits competition there, both domestic and from outside. We should not have repealed NN, but instead blocked all such exclusivity contracts that are the real thing stifling competition.

      Delete
    10. "I would love to get a big discount in exchange for restricted or throttled streaming."

      The data-blocking scams that the ISPs have in mind have nothing to do with the volume of data, and everything to do with preferred/opposed content providers.

      Now, to use what a world free of net neutrality reallY is like, your statement really would be:

      "I would love to get a big discount in exchange for not having any Disney Corp. material in my streaming, and only allow Fox".

      Delete
    11. It's pretty clear: all of the situations I was able to find in which ISPs were running afoul of net neutrality rules didn't involve in any case the ISPs blocking data for being video, but instead for them blocking the video for being from the wrong content provider.

      So, we can bury deep the entirely fabricated claim that repealing NN has anything to do with high-concentration video providers/consumers paying their "fair share".

      Delete
    12. "I would rather have the extra ISPs even if they block Netflix"

      Even if ends up being an ISP where the only allowed data use is watching Nickelodeon?

      Delete
  3. "Most opposition was based on more 'worst-case' fear mongering and propaganda."

    Can you tell us one thing abolishing Net Neutrality has solved or gotten rid of?

    I expect crickets, and that I shall receive.

    ReplyDelete
  4. welcome to the united states of china! net neutrality? what's that? no google and facebook for you. oh and your vpn doesn't work anymore too!

    ReplyDelete
  5. The sky is falling for those who think government should control everything. So called net neutrality was implemented in 2015. Did the internet suddenly become better then? Did Facebook work for you in 2014? Did your isp or phone carrier stop you from seeing what you wanted to see in 2014?

    Hardly. Net neutrality was a solution for a non existent problem. This is a victory,albeit a small one, for freedom and the American way.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And did the internet suddenly work less or cost more after net neutrality? Your argument is flawed if you think net neutrality somehow stifled our access to freedom.

      Delete
  6. Watch all the hysterical predictions of ISPs paywalling your favourite websites fail. Most of the hand wringing over the death of net neutrality is by people who don't even know how the internet actually works or what a transit agreement is.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Can anyone explain to me how this will impact my Virgin Mobile service?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Yes, net neutrality stood in the way of the consumer, hungry for more options. Now, we consumers will have the option of getting worse service unless we pay more money, an option we did not (well, legally) have before! Woohoo. A real win.

    ReplyDelete
  9. back then Comcast was slowing down my Netflix. Soon conservative will know what buffering is :-)

    ReplyDelete
  10. Most of the crying and (fake) hysteria is finally over. Time to face the reality and learn what you need to know about the end of NN. CNET has a balanced article here (even the bitter clingers should get started).
    https://www.cnet.com/news/fcc-net-neutrality-repeal-ajit-pai-what-you-need-to-know/#page-fcc-net-neutrality-repeal-ajit-pai-what-you-need-to-know

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I will believe it when I see it. Until proven otherwise, Net Neutrality is a sound idea and should not have been repealed.

      Delete
    2. The reality is that there is strong opposition to it, and a likelihood that Congress or the next President will put NN back in place at any point from 2019 to 2021.

      In the mean time, Comcast/etc will face a huge backlash if they exercise their new right to block Comcast again.

      Delete
  11. Small business will suffer, You Tube entrepreneurs will disappear, criminal ISP's like Comcast will decide which websites get 1st priority on searches, they will throttle service and send searches to their supported sites. Those that pay more will get a less restricted internet and those that pay nothing will get just that. The next time you post something on a forum (like here)you might have to pay 5 bucks.

    Who know when any of that will happen so thank heavens the attorneys generals are stepping up with lawsuits already to stop the reversal. Pai is bad for the consumer and pro large corporation. You think Comcast is bad now---just wait!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Why was my comment blocked?
    And don't say it was too political. Every comment on here is political. There's even someone on here talking about communism and several other posts calling others hysterical. Is it this site's right to block my comment? Sure. But selectively blocking comments that don't offend anyone will only drive people away from this site. I won't be returning to this site so feel free to block this post too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well then thanks for visiting. Don't let the proverbial door hit ya you know where.

      Delete
    2. I don't know which comment was yours. I blocked a couple of comments that advocated murdering political opponents and one that that I felt was ranty flamebait. On topic political comments are welcome on this post as long as they are respectful of oposing viewpoints.

      If you post anonymously I might inadvertently block your comment as a duplicate if it's similar to another anonymous comment. I recomend using a name rather than posting anonymosly as it makes discussions easier to follow.

      Delete
    3. I'm sure the "ranty" comment that didn't make it was mine. So what? I don't have a RIGHT to get my content allowed in this blog.

      Overall, I am 100% sure Dennis won't be losing anyone with his comment policy other than oversensitive political prima-donnas. The concern of "selectively blocking comments that don't offend anyone will only drive people away from this site" is just sour grapes from someone who had a poor-quality comment deleted.

      Delete
  13. WOW the sky is falling!

    (so Dennis, when are you putting up your paywall?)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anyone who thinks that the question of whether or not Dennis will put up a paywall knows nothing about the net neutrality issue: which affects ISPs and not websites.

      Delete
    2. Dennis B: Tell us if you wish how NN affects your ability to put "Prepaid Phone News" under a paywall.

      Delete
    3. I'm pretty sure the original paywall comment was a joke.

      Net Neutrality does not block publishers from using paywalls. It would have prevented carriers from charging extra to visit certain sites.

      Delete
    4. Dennis, given the misunderstanding over NN shown by the repeatedly claim that NN prevented ISPs from charging more for high data consumption, maybe one can assume the joke guy was dead-serious.

      Delete
  14. My blocked comment basically said that net neutrality will be back when Trump is out of office and that the next administration will spend much of their time cleaning up the mess left by Trump. Similar to the situation with Obama after Bush. I didn't realize that was too "ranty".

    ReplyDelete
  15. NN death isn’t even in effect yet and my Hulu service has stopped freezing every 15-20 min. for reload/buffering! I am on Fios and Hulu is owned 30% by Comcast. This is great! I would pay an extra $1-2/month to avoid this if necessary. I certainly hope that autonomous cars, emergency services and telemedicine can get a ‘fast lane’ now that this is not prohibited. Makes no sense to me why Netflix YouTube and other OTT services could hog most of the internet bandwidth (private investment) without paying their ‘fair share.’ I guess ISPs were banned from that concept because of the misdeeds of a few. Like most Gov overreach they punished all ISPs rather than the few who made bad decisions. I’m glad that’s over.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Two years ago streaming services consumed about 70% of internet traffic. It must be higher now. Some people think streaming will ruin the internet - private investment isn’t keeping up with demand. I would rather see video streaming junkies pay a little more than have speeds become slower and erratic for all. That was the future under net neutrality. RIP.

      Delete
    2. " I would rather see video streaming junkies pay a little more than have speeds become slower and erratic for all. "

      This isn't necessary. If you don't like streaming, then don't do it. It's not your business if others do. If you but out of what others do with the data they paid for, the problem is solved.

      Delete
    3. Denying problems doesn’t solve them. The extra revenue to expand internet capacity to keep up with video demand increases has to come from users. People who don’t binge-watch video shouldn’t have to subsidize others who do.

      Delete
    4. I would like to see a "Prepaid Broadband" option from ISPs. EG, 100GB for $35/month (vs $50 for 'unlimited'). After 100GB throttle to 1Mbps. No contract.
      Buy extra 100GB buckets for $10 each. Limited rollover of unused data if you renew before the month expires.
      Netflix, Hulu, etc could give you 100GB extra/month with a subscription, or discount your ISP buckets.
      Customers would use the data they bought for anything they liked. Conserve data? Save money.

      Delete
    5. Claiming that there is a problem when it doesn't actually exist doesn't help anything, remember the lesson of Chicken Little.

      "People who don’t binge-watch video shouldn’t have to subsidize others who do."

      People who don't binge watch video aren't subsidizing anything. Those who binge watch video are paying for what they do. So there is not a problem at all. Please, but out of it is not your business that people use differing amounts of data than you.

      Delete
  16. "People who don’t binge-watch video shouldn’t have to subsidize others who do."

    Agreed but try to convince the "I paid for data and you have to help me subsidize it" person that is always posting here otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ...actually, it is "I paid for the data I am using and no one else is. Any claim of anyone else subsidizing me is entirely imaginary and arbitrary. I paid for what I use. No one else paid for what I use."

      Delete
    2. This is really not complicated. When people binge, their high usage costs the ISP more money. When people use less than average, their lower use costs the ISP less money. Both users pay the same price for 'unlimited use;' both can use as much as they want. But the savings from the below-average user help 'subsidize' the extra costs incurred by the ISP for the binge user's high usage. If this 'subsidy' doesn't cover all the extra ISP costs, or more people decide to binge, the ISP has to increase prices, cut service or other operations costs, borrow money (which has a cost), accept less profit for owners/shareholders, merge with another company, or go out of business (reduced competition, often higher prices result).
      ISPs can try charging people for their "Fair Share," as suggested above @4:18 PM. 'Fair Share' is popular as long as it benefits the person you ask. Bingers hate the idea. Savers love it. So there are business risks with this approach, even it's just another plan option.
      With more and more data use, the money has to be found, or network speeds and reliability will suffer. Like AT&T and Verizon mobile data speeds fell when they reintroduced Unlimited plans. So the question of WHO should pay and HOW they should pay is becoming more relevant for ISPs. Ignoring or denying this "problem" is easy for customers, but not an option for ISPs. Subscribers will pay one way or another.

      Delete
    3. Anony 834a. I don't think the "I paid for it entitled person" will understand your explanation.

      Delete
    4. Subscribers already pay.

      Delete
    5. And yes, "bingers" love the idea of "fair share". Because that is what they pay: no more and no less.

      Delete
  17. Everything was totally above board, believe me. Many people are saying this has been proven, there's no evidence of wrongdoing, OK? No evidence.

    https://twitter.com/MackenzieAstin/status/941459382864437248/photo/1

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I'm under 23, so of course tweets are proof."

      Delete
    2. "I'm definitely bad at guessing ages, and either an old fart, grasping at straws because I have no argument, or a shill."

      https://www.npr.org/2017/12/14/570262688/as-fcc-prepares-net-neutrality-vote-study-finds-millions-of-fake-comments

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/12/14/there-was-a-flood-of-fake-comments-on-the-fccs-repeal-of-net-neutrality-they-may-count-less-than-you-think/

      http://www.fox9.com/news/fake-comments-net-neutrality

      http://mashable.com/2017/12/14/fake-net-neutrality-comment-fcc/#tk8G.ax9TaqV

      https://www.engadget.com/2017/12/14/fake-net-neutrality-comments-stolen-identities/

      https://www.cbsnews.com/news/net-neutrality-repeal-2m-fake-comments-prosecutor/

      Delete
  18. 'Road Neutrality'
    Let’s say I build a toll road across my land. It provides a shortcut that saves people 10 miles of driving. I let everyone use it - motorcycles to semi trucks. A lot of trucks and large buses representing 75% of the total vehicle weight, use the road, and it begins to wear out.

    I decide that since the semi-trucks and large buses are causing most of the damage, I should charge them a lot more money to use my road, and set a low speed limit for trucks and buses. If the trucks and buses want to go faster, they have to pay a higher toll. The trucking industry, bus companies and unions lobby the Government that my higher prices and separate speed limit improperly discriminate against truckers. They want ‘equal access’ to my private road.

    The politicians take campaign donations from the lobbyists, meet with them, and decide that the Government could regulate my road, since it connects to public roads. I spend a lot of money for lobbyists, too. This is my road!. I’m trying to protect my large investment that benefits the public. The media gives the issue a lot of attention.

    The President listens to the arguments and supports regulation of my road in several media interviews. The chief regulator, Mr. Wheels, is supposed to be independent. He meets with the President 15 times while draft regulations are being written, but says he never discussed the proposed regulation of my road. The major, traditional media outlets do not question his improbably claim.

    The regulator determines unilaterally that he has the authority to regulate all private roads that connect to public roads, even though this authority is not granted in law. The regulator discounts my argument that I built the road across my land with my own funds. His staff writes a new regulation that say I have to charge all drivers the same price and have a uniform speed limit. They call the regulation “Road Neutrality.”
    Needless to say, I’m not pleased. I stop the new investment I had planned to widen the road to reduce traffic congestion, and only fix major potholes. I would have to raise tolls so high that I would have substantial risk of getting an acceptable return on my investment.

    Fortunately, a new President appoints a new regulator who takes another look at my case. He decides that it would best serve the public if Government stopped the heavy regulation of my private road, which is inhibiting new investment needed to reduce traffic congestion and flat tires from many potholes. The Government would only intervene if I violated existing law (such as discrimination based on race or gender). The regulator drafts a regulation to repeal the original one. Millions of comments flood in, most of them supporting the original regulation. The regulator determines that almost all of these comments are uniformly written and fake, using stolen email addresses, for example. He discounts these comments. The regulator cancels the original regulation. However the trucking industry, unions and bus companies decide to file lawsuits to stop the new regulation from going into effect. I continue to delay my planned lane expansion until these lawsuits are decided. Traffic conditions continue to worsen on my private road.

    To be continued.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Totally invalid analogy... ISPs can already charge differently for the "size" of the truck... amount of data used.

      Net Neutrality protected against the silliness of the toll-keeper doing something like charging more for Peterbilt trucks vs Mack trucks... more for blue panel vans vs red ones. More for Ford and less for Chevy. This is it exactly: nothing to do with truck size or "road wear".

      Nothing to do with "Traffic conditions" (amount of data) at all. If you don't believe me, check every single mobile carrier, all of which have plans that they charge different amounts on for the amount of data used. They always had this before NN, of course, since it has nothing to do with NN.

      Delete
    2. NN prohibited ISPs for charging more for video, even though video traffic has the biggest impact on network QoS. A truck or bus (i.e., content) was the analogy for video traffic on the internet. Concentrated weight of a heavy vehicle has the biggest impact on a road. Not perfect, but not 'totally invalid' IMO.

      Delete
    3. "NN prohibited ISPs for charging more for video..."

      Of course, since "video" is no different from anything else anyone might use their data for.

      "even though video traffic has the biggest impact on network QoS"

      Did you think this through? Under NN, ISPs could charge more for using more data. So if someone was using more data through video (or anything at all) the ISPs were NOT prohibited from charging more.

      "A truck or bus (i.e., content) was the analogy for video traffic on the internet"

      And under NN, and without NN, ISP's weren't hampered in any way for charging more for something that used more data, because ISP's are always allowed to charge by amount of data used.

      Not only "not perfect", but objectively and factually invalid since it wasn't well thought out, and is based on multiple false premises (the latest of which to come to light being that you think that Net Neutrality prohibits ISPs from charging more for data consumed when it never has)

      Delete
    4. I think with the complete illogic he presented, the "Road Neutrality Guy" ended up throwing himself under his own data bus.

      Delete
    5. "even though video traffic has the biggest impact on network QoS"

      Since NN in no way restricted ISP's ability to charge more for more data consumed, ISPs could and DID always charge a lot more for video... .based on the data consumed by it.

      On this issue, you have failed to identify an issue that removing Net Neutrality solves.

      Delete
    6. Video is concentrated, sustained high levels of data (heavy truck traveling at high speed). And NN prohibited slowing just video content to cope with network loads (lower speed limit for trucks to limit road impacts/damage).
      Total volume of data is not as important to network QoS as sustained volume in a given time. Lots of video during peak periods has the biggest impact, but NN tied ISPs hands; all traffic had to suffer.
      IE, Autonomous car data, public safety and emergency services, telemedicine applications had to be treated the same as HD YouTube video, Netflix 4K movies Facebook updates and email. No data type could be given priority, slowed or charged extra, regardless of the implications to users. Facebook, Google/YouTube, Netflix, etc and their users love this, and streaming represents ~75% of Internet data volume. ISPs and many other users do not.

      Delete
    7. The aim of Net Neutrality is to enforce equal access to broadband data, a limited resource, especially on mobile. It requires carriers to treat all bytes the same. Without it, carriers will be able to:

      - Deliver video from services they own at full speed for free while blocking, degrading or charging extra for video from competing services.

      - Block competing technologies like VoIP or OTT messaging services.

      -Block content they don't like, such a site reporting on the carrier's inaccurate coverage maps or service outages.

      Hopefully the carriers will not abuse their new power to favor some content sources over others. However based on their past behavior (Verizon AT&T blocked Skype and Face Time, Comcast blocked BitTorrent; Verizon, AT&T and Sprint blocked Google Wallet) I'm not optimistic about that.

      Delete
    8. "NN prohibited ISPs for charging more for video, even though video traffic has the biggest impact on network QoS. A truck or bus (i.e., content) was the analogy for video traffic on the internet. Concentrated weight of a heavy vehicle has the biggest impact on a road. Not perfect, but not 'totally invalid' IMO."

      To make your analogy valid... Under NN rules, truck and buses can be still bharged a LOT more because and only because they weigh more. This means they can charge a zillion times more for these than for a bicycle, right?

      That's what you want, right? And with NN they can charge this way... no limits on ability !!

      So, why repeal NN???

      NN just stops the insanity of your "road" charging more for a 12 ton truck for than a 12 ton bus.

      Dennis recently listed real examples.

      Delete
    9. "Video is concentrated, sustained high levels of data (heavy truck traveling at high speed). And NN prohibited slowing just video content to cope with network loads (lower speed limit for trucks to limit road impacts/damage)."

      Yet, in the disputes which have made people realize how necessary NN was, the ISPs were ending up just blocking video providers they disagreed with or didn't like. The criteria for blocking the video wasn't based "concentrated, sustained high levels of data" but instead the company providing the data.

      Repealing NN now gives the ISPs freedom to block data transfer not for its "weight on the road", but for such things as the company it comes from.

      The issue and controversy has nothing to do with the impact of a lot of data consumption. Come on, you should know by now...

      Delete
    10. "E, Autonomous car data, public safety and emergency services, telemedicine applications had to be treated the same as HD YouTube video, Netflix 4K movies Facebook updates and email."

      That's quite reasonable. Once we pay for the data, it is not the ISP's business what we do with the data provided the usage is illegal.

      Delete
    11. also...

      "No data type could be given priority, slowed or charged extra, regardless of the implications to users. Facebook, Google/YouTube, Netflix, etc and their users love this, and streaming represents ~75% of Internet data volume. ISPs and many other users do not."

      It should be pointed out that the "users" who "do not" like people using Netflix are busybodies butting into matters which have no impact on them and are not a concern.

      I don't care what you watch and how you watch it. I feel sorry for the "get a lifes" who obsess on what others do. It's not their business, for one...And that's all the farther we need to go.

      Delete
    12. "Video is concentrated, sustained high levels of data"

      Under NN, ISPs were always able to charge different amounts for data quantity and data speed. Therefore, under the existing system allowed under NN, if someone used video and it used a lot of data, those using video PAID MORE. And they were using video at no more than the advertised LTE, 20MB, 4G etc speed.

      I get it: you hate video and don't want people to watch it. But you are ascribing nonexistent characteristics to video data that simply aren't there and are already handled UNDER net neutrality, by which those who wanted more data and faster data paid MORE.

      Delete
    13. "The aim of Net Neutrality is to enforce equal access to broadband data, a limited resource, especially on mobile. It requires carriers to treat all bytes the same. Without it, carriers will be able to:
      - Deliver video from services they own at full speed for free while blocking, degrading or charging extra for video from competing services.
      - Block competing technologies like VoIP or OTT messaging services.
      - Block content they don't like, such a site reporting on the carrier's inaccurate coverage maps or service outages."

      I agree. But if the FCC had written rules that just solved the problems caused by a few large ISPs, there would have been a lot less opposition to NN and it might still be a FCC rule. Instead of saying: "Suck eggs" the FCC told ALL ISPs large and small exactly how they were going to have to suck eggs, "or else" they could face sanctions and large fines. NN rules interfered with reasonable network management techniques in times of congestion. IE, ISPs could not temporarily slow ALL video, when the total video load was so high that network speed and reliability was significantly impacted. All data traffic had to suffer the resulting degradation caused by the high video load (cheers from the Netflix and Facebook video fans).
      Also, the NN regulations were written in a 'one-size-fits-all' manner as if all wireless and broadband ISPs were giant corporations with large compliance departments. Small ISPs trying to serve limited areas like new rural areas were disproportionately affected. Their 'compliance department' may easily have been the owner or senior manager. Making sure they were following all the 2015 general and specific policies in NN regulations was a significant burden and opportunity cost which diverted talent from operations and new investments. These impacts restricted ISP competition and availability in rural areas. The Federal government usually does a poor job understanding the estimated the regulatory compliance cost to small and mid-sized businesses; few regulators have the relevant experience to understand their unique compliance challenges.

      Delete
    14. "Video is concentrated, sustained high levels of data"

      Of course there is nothing true about this. Video bytes are no different from other bytes, and the same rules and allowed pricing plans involving charging for data used divided by TIME and total data allowed apply exactly the same to non-video bytes.

      Any analogy of buses on highways has smashed into a rock wall like Wile E Coyote on the fact of the packet nature of the Internet: the bus, in its actual travel, is broken up into a bunch of little roller-skates each going at a little bit different speed. No different from what happens to Granny's little Toyota. Which is also broken up into a bunch of roller skates...

      And all the "little chunks" no matter what source travel all the same: again, there is no big bus running Granny's toyota off the road.

      Delete
    15. "Concentrated weight of a heavy vehicle has the biggest impact on a road. Not perfect, but not 'totally invalid' IMO."

      This doesn't apply the the Internet, where everything is broken up into little packets which all flow just alike. Your "heavy vehicle" is smashed into little pieces, which are then sent over the net, and then put back together turned into a "heavy vehicle" on the other end. The only presence it has as a heavy vehicle is on sender and receiver end.

      Delete
    16. "Also, the NN regulations were written in a 'one-size-fits-all' manner"

      What is unreasonable about the protections that Net Neutrality provided, upon any ISP large or small?

      See what Dennis wrote that NN prevented:

      " Deliver video from services they own at full speed for free while blocking, degrading or charging extra for video from competing services.

      - Block competing technologies like VoIP or OTT messaging services.

      -Block content they don't like, such a site reporting on the carrier's inaccurate coverage maps or service outages."


      Now tell me that ANY of this is an unreasonable burden that makes it hard for the little guy? What a joke...

      You think that it is a "burden" that ISPs are prevented for banning Fox movies just for coming from Fox????

      Delete
  19. Your analogy fails in a basic premise: while you may own the land where you build the toll road, ISPs don't own the spectrum. They're leasing it from us, the people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is a good point, aside from what I pointed out earlier (that his anology made the mistaken assumption that NN prevented ISP's from charging more for more data used, instead of the reality that NN prevents charging more for what you do with the data).

      Delete
    2. Wireless ISPs license the right to use public spectrum through binding contracts. NN added extra restrictions AFTER the vast majority of those licenses had been granted in bilateral contracts. Like a unilateral mod to a bilateral contract. Not normally legal. Like changing the rules after the game has begun. Wireless ISPs said NN restrictions discouraged network expansion and innovative new services.

      Broadband ISPs lease or build data infrastructure to connect to the Internet. The people do not own the ISP's wired data infrastructure. NN affected all of those investments, by introducing new rules that restrict how the ISPs can earn a return on their assets. The impact was not positive, so some new investments were net made according to ISPs.

      Delete
    3. "Wireless ISPs said NN restrictions discouraged network expansion and innovative new services."

      ... a claim they have never backed up except to cite examples in which they are double charging people for data they already purchased. Some "innovation".

      "NN affected all of those investments, by introducing new rules that restrict how the ISPs can earn a return on their assets"

      I happen to find it reasonable that the "rules" prevented the ISPs from ripping us off by double-charging us and from nosing into how we legally use the data we purchase and engaging in such nefarious activity and fining us not for the data amount used, but for using data that originates from a company the ISP has a beef with.

      "so some new investments were not made according to ISPs."

      I'm glad that "new investment" in double-charging ripoff scams and provider-inspired content censorship were discouraged. That's a GOOD thing!

      Delete
    4. "Wireless ISPs license the right to use public spectrum through binding contracts. NN added extra restrictions AFTER the vast majority of those licenses had been granted in bilateral contracts."

      And where in these original binding contracts did we (the people) stipulate to allowing the ISPs to discriminate between a byte of video data versus a byte of something else?

      Delete
    5. "And where in these original binding contracts did we (the people) stipulate to allowing the ISPs to discriminate between a byte of video data versus a byte of something else?"

      We've seen the magical claims many times here that a bit contains more information than just a 1 or a 0.... such as whether or not the bit is a "video" bit.

      I dunno, but maybe someone should take Computer Science 101, which might get rid of the idea of "trinary bits" that seem to be so prevalent here.

      Delete
  20. The Wireless ISP Association, representing 800 mostly small ISPs, issued a statement supporting the cancellation of NN regulations. Some interesting comments, especially how NN affected small ISPs serving rural areas and trying to expand their networks to more people.

    https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/wispa-applauds-fcc-s-vote-repealing-net-neutrality?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTldNMVpqa3lNVFJrWXpFMCIsInQiOiJRWjhIeWRNaElnQU54bjY5UXQ0VnRHVFlCbWJOOFpaU2hGdGxpbjBXeVpaS3R2WEt3eXdXMWZPRTZPdEh6ellNS0JJb1Q5dEQ3MlZSMlRwYmtzZEZLUlBtWEh0R3Q4bmNYM2lHaTQxQVZVbWh5Y1NMXC9GQzJyV0F0citSM1lpU0gifQ%3D%3D&mrkid=6195616

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am not surprised that WISPA is against NN. Many WISPS provide expensive and slow data and are not competitive with LTE. These obsolete WISPS are likely struggling to compete with expanding LTE coverage. If the loss of NN results in greater LTE restrictions, the lifespan of the zombie WISPS will be extended. Keeping the zombies alive will move America backward not forward, which is the direction that Pai seems to embrace.

      Delete
    2. "did we (the people) stipulate to allowing the ISPs to discriminate between a byte of video data versus a byte of something else?"

      No. The contracts were signed by unelected government FCC bureaucrats. The Commissioner is not accountable to the people. The contracts do not tell the carriers and ISPs how to run their businesses. They were signed under the "light touch" regulatory philosophy that had allowed the Internet to expand at an astounding pace up until 2015. This 'telecommunications miracle' started in 1982 (if I remember right) when President Reagan signed the law that deregulated telecommunications services and split up Ma Bell. The resulting competition drove more innovation in the next few years than we had seen under decades of heavy regulation, where government bureaucrats had to approve every Ma Bell rate increase and limited their profit to a small, single digit level as a percentage of their costs! Why reduce costs?! That meant, in effect, that Bell had to get government permission to make all big, new investments. Long distance costs to consumers were outrageous then, more than $1/minute to call across country when I was young. There was virtually no incentive to improve products or services.

      Delete
    3. How many bits in a video byte vs bits in a non-video byte?

      Hearing about these massive damaging video bytes, I figure each mist have 50 bits at least!

      Delete
  21. One big problem with the anti-NN arguments is that they forget the huge regulations that are still kept in place. Unlike NN, which doesn't prevent any competition or innovation, these regulations DO prohibit freedom and strongly stifle competition.

    I am referring of course to the unnecessary regulations that grant ISPs exclusive contracts in most of their markets; COMCAST can do what it wants where it reigns because laws have made it a crime for CHARTER to provide cable to the same area, and vice versa....and also to the DMCA which includes a lot of censorship.

    If the FCC smashed all the regulations that specifically prevented competition, then things would be a lot better. Instead of getting rid of NN, the repeal of which only allows such "innovations" as the ISP blocking content from Disney, Inc because the ISP's CEO has a personal beef with Disney.

    ReplyDelete
  22. All bits are binary, all bytes are 8 bits. A video byte is no different than an audio byte or a gif byte. You can't get around the science. The assertion that video data is somehow different is poppycock.

    Data can only be measured/controlled in two ways: speed and amount. There is no such thing as data strength and intensity. There's no "amplitude" allowance in a byte.

    Under Net Neutrality, ISPs had full freedom to charge varying rates based on data consumption and speed... These are the only aspects that affect the cost of service and bandwidth considerations.

    The idea of a "Netflix byte" or "Comcast byte" or "Video byte" or "Tiny text web page byte" is unscientific as well. A byte is a byte. Look this up if you aren't sure. And the use of a byte costs the same no matter what... Video or not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment and the ones at 8:13 am, 1009, 1036, 1113, 1216, 919, 1206 and 1:59 PM (in order above) ignore the other critical factor that impacts network congestion and performance: Time. Volume of data over time is the issue, not just volume. If certain content providers try to push too much data over a network in a given period of time, the network can’t keep up with all that traffic at once, and quality of service suffers.

      It’s kinda like rush hour on the highway, where all vehicles share all lanes. Overall traffic throughput on a crowded highway goes DOWN after average speeds drop below ~30 (?) MPH, according to traffic engineers. What do they do to increase overall passenger throughput? (yes, a different analogy here since the government owns this highway.) Traffic engineering and management is the answer. Carpool HOV lanes, and HOT lanes where drivers pay more to drive faster, depending on the traffic congestion in the regular lanes and distance travelled. If a short trip os important during rush hour, you pay for a fast HOT lane or join a carpool. Traffic engineers can move substantially more passengers over the same highway by designating one or more HOV or HOT lanes. This works even though the restriction of lane(s) only for certain uses slows down passenger traffic in the ‘regular’ lanes.

      NN in effect banned the equivalent of HOV and HOT lanes on the Internet. All data slowed the same during time periods of high congestion. Data equality says no byte is more important than another. Many people think that some data should be given a higher priority during network congestion. Data for emergency services applications, or self-driving cars that could hurt someone if they couldn’t get location data, for example.

      Consider the road traffic management discussed above, where the public priority was increasing passenger throughput. Without HOV or HOT lanes, a bus with 50 passengers waits the same extra time during heavy rush hour as a car, or a truck with just a driver that took up 8 car-lengths of highway space. The bus carries 50X passengers and took 50 cars off the road, easing traffic congestion and benefitting everyone, but it had to wait like everyone else. The truck took up 8X the highway space compared to one car, adding to congestion, but waited no longer than any car.

      Ultimately this mostly comes down to a battle between groups of giant corporations. Content providers vs. Network owners.
      How much control can network owners exercise on a shared Internet?
      How much relative performance can content providers demand from network owners when networks are constrained or congested?
      Are there other public goals related to the internet, like the desire to expand service into rural areas using private investment that should influence the rules?

      We’re watching the battle play out. The score os 1-1 going into the 3rd skirmish.
      One team has asked for the refs to cancel the second score.

      Delete
    2. "NN in effect banned the equivalent of HOV and HOT lanes on the Internet."

      That doesn't seem to be the case. However, it did ban such "HOV and HOT lanes" when the reason had nothing to do with managing traffic and only to do with cronyism (the "truck" being allowed onto the lane paid a bribe or is a buddy of the CEO).

      So, what is your goal here, "Mr TL:DR Road Analogy Guy"? [1] To justify proper and reasonable management of high impact internet traffic.... which Net Neutrality did allow? so it is no issue?

      Or [2] to justify company-based bribes for inclusion... the main thing Net Neutrality banned?

      All you say, all the War and Peace road stuff, is defending the [2] idea of ISP's allowing 12 ton Peterbilts and banning 12 ton Mack Trucks because the ISP owner thinks the Mack truck is ugly.

      Delete
    3. "Ultimately this mostly comes down to a battle between groups of giant corporations. Content providers vs. Network owners."

      Also, you are missing the point entirely. Net Neutrality stopped the growing problem of "content providers and network owners" (ever more a SINGLE ENTITY) battling against US.

      Again, you need to do some thinking. And when you do, tell us of the epic battle that exists between the ISP called AT&T and the content provider called DirecTV. This will be interesting....

      Delete
    4. What you are ignoring is that the now rescinded net neutrality rules explicitly allowed reasonable network management practices.

      In 2015 Verizon successfully used that exemption to justify throttling all video to 480p, actually 1.5 mbps, even when the network was not congested. The other carriers quickly followed.

      Delete
    5. Exactly, Dennis. Net neutrality allows this. The road guy seems to take a long time to say it wasn't allowed at all.

      Delete
  23. Nothing ignored. "Time" is taken into account in the factor how much data PER SECOND a data plan allows. As a reminder, check into the acronym "Mbps". It will be enlightening to you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Time factor was ignored in every comment cited except 12:16, which mentioned speed options. Maximum speed/time is not guaranteed by ISPs, however (read your agreement). It is not achieved when there is too much congestion.
      The issue raised was the network management techniques that were prohibited to resolve congestion under NN rules, and whether those NN restrictions made sense.

      Delete
    2. Time as part of how ISPs always charge by Mbps was never ignored

      Delete
  24. Even the so-called reasonable 480p/1.5mbps video throttle shouldn't have been allowed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Verizon had to throttle this way. They could not throttle video ONLY when the net was very congested. That ‘discrimination’ against video would have violated NN principles - not considered reasonable network management.

      Delete
    2. I do not believe that Network Neutrality prohibited throttling video only when the network was congested. That would be the very essence of network management, whose goal is to relieve congestion.

      Delete
    3. "Verizon had to throttle this way. They could not throttle video ONLY when the net was very congested. That ‘discrimination’ against video would have violated NN principles - not considered reasonable network management."

      It seems like the opposite is much more likely.

      Anyway, it is good that we have moved the goalposts in discussing Net Neutrality to reasonable bandwidth management without any regard to who is sending the data or consuming it, and away from specific data discrimination based on content provider. NN was repealed in order to encourage/allow such discrimination.

      I guess we are getting growing agreement that this is a bad thing, finally.

      Delete
    4. You should believe it, Dennis. Here is the actual text from the Open Internet Order:

      “A person engaged in the provision of broadband internet access service ... shall not impair or degrade lawful internet traffic on the basis of internet >>content,<< application, or >>service,<< or use of a non-harmful device, subject to reasonable network management.”
      IE; some throttling is allowed, but only in limited circumstances.

      The trouble is, the order is a vague on what constitutes “reasonable network management;” the commission assumed it might take many different forms and could vary by company and network architecture. There were a handful of guidelines on what might and might not violate the exception. One big limitation - the n.m. practice must be “primarily motivated by a technical network management justification rather than other business justifications.”

      If a management practice passes that test, then it moves onto on other qualifications. The open order also advises that network management practices that “alleviate congestion without regard to the source, destination, >>content,<< application, or >>service<< are also more likely to be considered reasonable.”

      Some throttling is allowed under NN, but only in limited circumstances.
      Verizon really walked the line on their throttling. Its throttling did discriminate between content, since it was designed to apply only to video content. But they applied it to all video IN ADVANCE of any specific congestion. So while there was the potential for a net neutrality violation there, it’s hard to say with absolute certainty.
      Ultimately, under NN it was up to the FCC to decide what does and doesn’t count as reasonable network management. This all happened last July, as the FCC was planning to end NN. So we will never know what Wheeler & Co. would have decided.
      That is the rub. The network management exception was vague enough that ISPs didn't really know what they you do until after people complained and the FCC made a specific determination. It's hard and time-consuming to make network decisions when you don't have clear rules, and there is a threat of sanctions, penalties and damage to your company's reputation hanging overhead.

      S: The Verge

      Delete
  25. To the guy who said this is just a round in the battle between content providers and ISPs: the two are rapidly merging and consolidating.

    So you think that there is a battle between Chevy and Buick ???

    ReplyDelete
  26. Comcast bought NBC Universal. Verizon bought AOL and some smaller companies. AT&T wants Time Warner. Did the giant ISPs buy huge content providers Netflix, Google, Facebook, Disney/ABC, Amazon Video? I didn't notice that.
    There are hundreds of content providers, so 'rapidly' will take a long time. Check back in a couple of years and we can do an audit.
    Meanwhile, don't be surprised when huge ISPs and giant content providers fight for their interests like they did over NN. Hundreds of millions of dollars in lobbying alone.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Comcast bought NBC Universal. Verizon bought AOL and some smaller companies...."

      Thanks for describing how drastic content provider and ISP consolidation is becoming, and your comment supports the idea that we need some sort of protection (for the benefit of BOTH consumers and for new, innovative content providers) to prevent ISPs from acting unfairly in regards to how they treat their own content vs content from elsewhere.

      Delete
    2. You should run for Congress; you'd fit right in! Pass thousands more laws that protect the people from anything that those big, evil corporations might possibly do in the future. And of course, you will accept campaign donations from any of those companies; that won't influence any of those new speculative bills you write one bit. Sounds like a good opportunity!

      Delete
  27. Reading most of the above comments is hilarious. Reading above comments or fox news chat room, both are laughable.

    ReplyDelete
  28. New House bill to fix Internet regulation after the end of Net Neutrality:
    http://techfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/NN_02_xml.pdf
    It's short - anyone should be able to read the whole thing without dozing off.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This Bill makes a lot of sense. Addresses the original problems, without the overkill that made NN so polarizing. If Congress had passed this back in 2015 when a similar Bill was proposed, FCC's NN hostile takeover of privately owned broadband data service as a "public telecommunications utility" would not have been necessary. And our data and content bills would be lower with out the $150M plus lobbying costs, for and against.
      My only criticism is that this bill appears to have the same or similar vague language regarding "reasonable network management" from NN regulations. But that NN exception was copied by FCC into the NN regs from the 2015 Bill. Content vendors howled about allowing even that vague exception in 2015, but failed to block it.

      Delete
    2. That bill by Republican Rep. Blackburn of Tennessee does more harm than good. It does prohibit ISPs from blocking lawful or throttling content. But it allows paid prioritization which means that services that don't pay for Prioritization will be deprioritized. It also blocks states from enacting their own net neutrality laws and prevents the FCC from ever classifying data transport services as the common carriers they so obviously are.

      Blackburn's bill is opposed by all the major organizations that fought for net neutrality including the Internet Association, EFF, ACLU, FreePress.org and Fight for the Future.

      Delete
    3. I disagree with just about everything @11:54.
      Almost everybody here was running around like their heads had been cut off, worried about blocking and throttling as the biggest threats if NN was repealed. Just like the 2015 Bill introduced by the Republicans, the new bill would prohibit those practices (even though all the big ISPs have promised they won’t do this). Zero rating was never prohibited by NN, so that's not an issue. It's so popular with the people that there would be a huge outcry, bigger than NN supporters raised, if zero rating was banned so we don't have to worry about politicians doing that. Democrats said in 2015: "Oh, you're just proposing Internet protections because we're in power. You aren't really for that.” And they killed the 2015 Bill (which was introduced before NN took effect). Well, yes Republicans really are for protections; the new Bill is proof since they are in power now. I think it’s logical that both sides should agree these protections are valuable to the industry and consumers; they ban bad practices and eliminate the likely potential for big, disruptive rule swings every 4 years. It sure doesn't help ISPs or consumers when there is a patchwork of differing state and federal laws that drive up network management complexity and regulatory compliance costs which get passed on to consumers by nationwide carriers.

      Your theory that paid prioritization means that other services will be reprioritized is mostly just a theory at this point, IMO. Overall, there is a lot of network capacity. Companies that want to charge the streaming video companies more say that they need the extra revenue to improve the networks to reduce bottlenecks caused by streaming video (~75% of the data passed on Internet). That makes sense. We'll see in 2018-2019 whether CAPEX goes up; the trend line bent down over the past two years under NN, even as data consumption increased significantly. I believe CAPEX will go up, and the video streaming companies which cause most of the congestion should pay their fair share to eliminate bottlenecks. Eliminating the Title II regulation of the Internet significantly decreases short and long-term investment risk. The idea that the privately-built and owned Internet is a common carrier, a voice comm concept from 1934, makes no sense to me in the Internet age. It was a power grab by unelected, unaccountable politicians. Sure, the DC District court gave great deference to the regulatory power of the Executive Branch. District Courts are usually cautious not to second-guess federal regulations much, as a legal and a practical matter. DC District did not really even delve into the merits of the NN regs themselves. But of course, the same thing will be true when the NN decision lawsuits come back up to District court. The judges won't want to seem arbitrary and capricious in overturning the FCC NN repeal.

      Blackburn’s Bill makes good sense to me, just like the 2015 Bill did. I hope it passes.

      Delete
  29. FCC Net Neutrality Repeal Permits Blocking and Throttling - http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db1214/DOC-348261A1.pdf

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Released: January 4, 2018 http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2018/db0104/FCC-17-166A1.pdf

      Delete
  30. Internet Association to Fight FCC's Net Neutrality Repeal - PhoneScoop.com - The Internet Association plans to fight the FCC's attempt to repeal net neutrality. The FCC this week published the final version of its Report & Order to sack the Obama-era laws that govern the internet. The FCC seeks to reclassify broadband internet under Title I of the Communications Act as a private service, rather than as a utility under Title II. The FCC also plans to ditch the bright-line rules that prohibit throttling, blocking, and prioritization. In response, the Internet Association said, "The final version of Chairman Pai’s rule, as expected, dismantles popular net neutrality protections for consumers. This rule defies the will of a bipartisan majority of Americans and fails to preserve a free and open internet. IA intends to act as an intervenor in judicial action against this order and, along with our member companies, will continue our push to restore strong, enforceable net neutrality protections through a legislative solution." Members of IA include internet giants Google, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft, Netflix, Spotify, eBay, Twitter, Pandora, PayPal, and others. The Internet Association plans to fight the FCC's attempt to repeal net neutrality. The FCC this week published the final version of its Report & Order to sack the Obama-era laws that govern the internet. The FCC seeks to reclassify broadband internet under Title I of the Communications Act as a private service, rather than as a utility under Title II. The FCC also plans to ditch the bright-line rules that prohibit throttling, blocking, and prioritization. In response, the Internet Association said, "The final version of Chairman Pai’s rule, as expected, dismantles popular net neutrality protections for consumers. This rule defies the will of a bipartisan majority of Americans and fails to preserve a free and open internet. IA intends to act as an intervenor in judicial action against this order and, along with our member companies, will continue our push to restore strong, enforceable net neutrality protections through a legislative solution." Members of IA include internet giants Google, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft, Netflix, Spotify, eBay, Twitter, Pandora, PayPal, and others. https://internetassociation.org/statement-restoring-internet-freedom-order/

    ReplyDelete
  31. Democrats vow to force vote on net neutrality - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-internet/democrats-vow-to-force-vote-on-net-neutrality-idUSKBN1EY2B2

    ReplyDelete
  32. Resolution to restore net neutrality needs one more vote to pass in the Senate - https://www.phonearena.com/news/Net-neutrality-one-vote-away-from-a-come-back_id101665

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They have less than 30 days to find a second Republican vote. After that it is too late.

      Delete
  33. More than 20 states are suing the Federal Communications Commission over its net neutrality decision. New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who is leading the suit, said that the FCC’s repeal of net neutrality was “arbitrary and capricious” and violates federal law.“An open internet – and the free exchange of ideas it allows – is critical to our democratic process,” said Schneiderman in a statement. “The repeal of net neutrality would turn internet service providers into gatekeepers – allowing them to put profits over consumers while controlling what we see, what we do, and what we say online."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It might cause a war... between consumers protecting their rights by masking everything they do using a VPN, and ISP's trying to snoop on the byte usage in order to double- and triple- charge people willy-nilly for what people do with their data.

      Delete
  34. Pai offers no data for claim that Title II repeal boosts broadband construction. - https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/01/fcc-admits-mobile-cant-replace-home-internet-wont-lower-speed-standard/

    ReplyDelete
  35. Montana Governor Seeks to Make Net Neutrality Compulsory - http://www.phonescoop.com/articles/article.php?a=20059

    ReplyDelete
  36. Net Neutrality Repeal Goes Into Effect April 23 - The FCC today published its "Restoring Internet Freedom" rules governing net neutrality. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/02/22/2018-03464/restoring-internet-freedom

    ReplyDelete
Comment Page :


Comments must be approved before they will appear. The following types of comments will not be approved:
- Off topic, comments should be related to the contents of the post.
- Name calling, insults and personal attacks.
- Racist, sexist, ableist etc. comments.
- Language you shouldn't use in front of other people's children.