Net Neutrality

[rivcuban]

Higher bills, poorer service for the average consumer.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2017/11/26/when-the-fcc-kills-net-neutrality-heres-what-your-internet-will-look-like/#1523f4694c68

[herman]

We all know forbes, the left-wing mouthpiece, is a purveyor of fake news, Luis.

[herman]

The new FCC chairman, Ajit Pai, formerly worked as a lawyer for Verizon. His plan to eliminate net neutrality is a bigger gift to Verizon than anything he's ever done before.

In just a few weeks, the FCC will vote to eliminate net neutrality. The vote isn't in doubt: with Pai in charge, the anti-neutrality votes have a 3-2 edge. Without net neutrality, Internet service providers will be able to charge web companies for "fast lanes," which they can't do now. Smaller online video or videogame providers could be relegated to the slow lane. The biggest service providers (Netflix, Google, Amazon, and others) may have to cough up extra money, but the consumers won't see any of that–all the benefits will go to the ISPs. Consumers could see their rates go up.

Higher fees for lousier service. Does this sound familiar? That's how cable companies have operated for years.

Not surprisingly, virtually everyone hates this idea except the cable companies themselves. The telecommunications industry, though, is very excited about the prospect of all the money they're going to make. When previous FCC commissioner Tom Wheeler proposed to weaken net neutrality just a couple of years ago, the ensuing public outcry convinced him to reverse himself, resulting in a strong ruling in 2015 preserving neutrality. This week, Wheeler blasted Pai's new rules, saying that "this proposal raises hypocrisy to new heights."

But don't take my word for it. Check out this terrific and entertaining explainer from John Oliver, earlier this year:

Here's the nightmare version of what your Internet service could look like in a few years if Ajit Pai and his telecom buddies get their way – I altered the first line, just to convey the idea; the rest is from a list of Comcast's current cable TV services:

That's right: your Internet service provider (ISP) will be allowed to bundle websites just like they bundle television channels. Of course, ISPs say they will do no such thing, and some experts say it's unlikely that they would do so given the risk of antagonizing consumers. More likely, they say, is a shift toward plans where content providers favored by the ISP are given preferential treatment.

If net neutrality goes away, it could become harder to establish a thriving business online by offering popular content. They'll need to raise money to pay the ISPs, or else face being relegated to the slow lane.

No one wants this change except a few large telecom companies. Interviewed by The Nation, former FCC Commissioner Michael Copps said

"There can be no truly open internet without net neutrality. To believe otherwise is to be captive to special interest power brokers or to an old and discredited ideology that thinks monopoly and not government oversight best serves the nation."

Ajit Pai, our new FCC chairman, clearly belongs to the former.

[rivcuban]

Sickening how these fascist pigs are taking away from the poor and middle class and giving it to the richest of the rich.

[Navy]

Maybe we all ought to get off the net and live our lives....what a concept! Prices would tumble then I'll betcha.

[herman]

Yeah, it is.  Were they themselves the only ones to be hurt by the actions of the politicians they voted for, part of me would shrug and say, you deserve it.

Unfortunately, the rest of us, who knew and know better, and our kids and grandkids, will suffer as well.

[herman]

????

Just because you don't use the internet save for this forum doesn't mean other Americans are so restricted.  Why on earth should the prices be raised for the majority of us, you included, simply in order to enrich the already-wealthy and to penalize others?

[Navy]

Assumptions aren't your friends Herman. I'm sorry this is all your life consists of...but many would do just fine without the Net in their lives. Maybe their life would be better?

Now back to the topic. Why don't we have a boycott of sorts. Take a week off...all of us. that would shake them up.

[herman]

Again, you're judging what others should do by what you like or don't like to do, navy.  

Again, I ask you:  Why do you think it's okay to raise prices simply to enrich the already-rich and to penalize others?

[Navy]

I don't you imbecile! I gave an idea of addressing it. You of course per your usual took it to a stupid level of not understanding me and what I was saying..

[herman]

A much simpler and way more effective method of achieving what you want - that prices don't get raised - is for your Republicans to back away from abolishing net neutrality.  You know, like Obama did.

Unfortunately for you and the rest of us, your politicians are determined to penalize us in order to make the already-wealthy even richer.

[Navy]

Why are you so jealous of the wealthy? Don't you have enough?

[herman]

Why do you support raising the prices for the rest of us in order to make the wealthy even richer?

[Navy]

I just don't care about like you do. Sue me.

[herman]

You don't care that you're likely to have to pay more for the same or slower or less-content-service.

You don't care that other Americans, some of whom you might actually care about, will be in the same boat.

[Navy]

You really don't get it do you? 50 years ago there was no 'Net'...people lived their lives and were happy. Sometimes I feel like technology has fucked us over big time. I wouldn't miss it if it all went away.

[herman]

I 'get" it very well.

Because Republicans are the ones doing the deed, you're all for having to pay a higher price for the same or worse service, restricted content, slower speed.  It's also okay with you that other people, including those whom you might care about, have to pay more money, too.

[Navy]

Yep...we all have choices to make. If we can't afford the NET we can choose to ditch it. Many lives would be enriched if they did ditch it. Yours maybe.

[Ragnar]

Restricted.....idiot flotsam.....the internet is key to the economy and impossible to do without for almost all jobs. More sucking from the middle class and will help help lessen demand as we move towards the next mega recession. 

[herman]

Ah, so it's okay with you that Republicans needlessly make things more expensive for Americans.

On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 7:44:27 PM UTC-5, Navy wrote:

Yep...we all have choices to make. If we can't afford the NET we can choose to ditch it. Many lives would be enriched if they did ditch it. Yours maybe.

[Navy]

No skin off my nose. If I can no longer afford , I will jettison.

[Ragnar]

Another reason to invest in guillotines 

[herman]

It's okay with you politicians make things more expensive for you, when there's no need to do so save the desire to make the already-rich richer, so long as those politicians are Republican.

Okay, would you still say it's okay that politicians make things more expensive for you, when there's no need to do so save the desire to enrich the already-wealthy, if the politicians are Democrats?

[Navy]

Your head would be one of the first to roll...shit face.

[Navy]

On Net Neutrality? Yep. choices...we make them every day.

[Lobo]

<<Higher bills, poorer service for the average consumer>>

That's the least of it, by far. Abolishing net neutrality -- the way the internet has operated since its inception -- will mean that only big websites that pay for the privilege will be readily available. All others will be slowed down, made all but inaccessible.

Think of it as a highway system (the "Information Highway"). Big stores like WalMart, Kroger and Home Depot will now be able to redirect the highway exits directly to their parking lots. If you want to go anywhere else, you'll have to somehow drive off onto an extremely crowded single lane dirt road; one with stop signs and traffic lights every 50 feet or so.

But it gets even worse. They'll also have control of which news and political sites you'll be able to navigate to.

Net neutrality rules are essentially a form of anti-trust laws - a concept people like Trump have no more patience for than environmental laws.

On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 6:53:38 PM UTC-5, rivcuban wrote:

[herman]

Republicans, both politicians and sheep such as navy, seem to be content to establish the precedent that the Federal Government, in tandem with big corporations, decides which news and political sites will be available on the internet.

[Lobo]

As long as it's THEIR "news" and political sites, that's just fine by Republicans.

After all, if it's not TrumpNews, it's "Fake News".

Why does anyone need to see anything that isn't TrumpNews? Why should they be be allowed to...?

(And always remember: Big Brother Is Watching You...)