Bye Bye, Net Neutrality...

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

Bushy

I read through almost all four pages and came away with a bit of understanding for both sides..then came upon this quote ....first time I have laughed all week...Thanks Bushy..I needed that !!

It's not just a commitment, it's a responsibility.  Like my daily nap.

Lets go fishing soon, yeah?

Bushy

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

And yet, if you read through this list of press releases, you'll find plenty of cases of the government helping.

https://www.sec.gov/news/pressreleases

Here's one specific example:
https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2017-180

"The SEC’s complaint alleges that Gennity and Roveccio recommended investments that involved frequent buying and selling of securities without any reasonable basis to believe their customers would profit.  According to the complaint, since customers incur costs with every transaction, the price of the security must increase significantly during the brief period it is held in an account for even a minimal profit to be realized.

The SEC further alleges that Gennity and Roveccio churned customer accounts, engaged in unauthorized trading, and concealed material information from their customers – namely that the transaction costs associated with their recommendations (commissions, markups, markdowns, postage, fees, and margin interest) would almost certainly outstrip any potential monetary gains in the accounts.  According to the SEC’s complaint, customer losses totaled $683,038 while Gennity and Roveccio received approximately $280,000 and $206,000, respectively, in commissions and fees."

Is this really what you want in an unregulated market?

And here are some from an Agency that is trying to be reigned in by our current administration:

https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/?title=&categories=press-release&from_date=&to_date=

"CFPB Takes Action Against Citibank For Student Loan Servicing Failures That Harmed Borrowers"
"CFPB Fines Xerox Business Services $1.1 Million for Incorrect Consumer Information Sent to Credit Reporting Agencies"
"CFPB Sues Think Finance For Collecting On Debts That Consumers Did Not Legally Owe"
"CFPB Sues Debt-Relief Companies Illegally Posing As Federal Government"

https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-supervision-recovers-14-million-first-half-2017-over-100000-consumers-harmed-illegal-practices/
"The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) today announced that recent supervisory actions resulted in $14 million in relief to more than 104,000 harmed consumers from January through June 2017. Findings in today’s Supervisory Highlights report include that some banks misled consumers about checking account fees or overdraft coverage, and some credit card companies deceived consumers about pay-by-phone fees. The report also found some auto lenders had wrongly repossessed consumers’ vehicles, and some debt collectors improperly communicated with consumers about debts. "

This is money going back to people, individuals like you and me. 

There are good federal agencies out there that are doing great things.  Can they be a little gladhanded on businesses both big and small? YUP.  But they're leveling the playing field.  And I see nothing wrong with having individuals on the same plane as the businesses that they are paying money to.

Do you think the Better Business Bureau would have fixed those problems? Pro tip: BBB is a scam.

The internet should definitely be regulated like a public utility because we "all" use it in one form or another.  The whole fcc decision was a farce and the FCC chairman is a clown.(former Verizon executive)...hmmm...conflict of interest???

Trusting the Telecoms to do the right thing is never a good thing for the general public (business, society, consumers etc...) It is only good for one sector and that's the Telecom companies that control the pipes.

This the same companies that "marketed" teir capped data plans on and jacked everyone on their data use until TMobile changed the game back to unlimited plans And "forced" Verizon and Att to play nice vs lining their pockets.

There won't be a difference right away because they are smart enough to not rattle the Cage with their new found freedom but it will only be a matter of time before the creative marketing language starts appearing and trying to convince the general public that getting f&ck in the ass is somehow good for you. Thanks Trump!!!

It *is* large corporations ruling the government already, the idea that being controlled by corporations is better than being controlled by the government is silly. It's the same thing.

Wait, wut?

Kim Komando wrote this about net neutrality and I think it pretty much sums up the situation;

As you are no doubt aware, the FCC voted 3-2 on Thursday, to repeal the 2 1/2-year-old Net Neutrality rules. I�ll admit that the coined phrase, �Net Neutrality� certainly sounded good.

The words invoked images of a perfect world. You know, where there's a fair and free market and open internet. Where there's a neutral level playing field so that anyone anywhere could cook up an idea and run with it and no one could put up any barriers to get in their way.

The Washington name game

Like most legislation coming out of Washington, the name didn't really reflect what the law would have done. Here�s a case in point: Ask yourself, �Where was the internet 25 years ago in 1992?� For the most part, it did not exist!

OK, then ask yourself how in the world did it become the all-pervasive, everywhere at once, information, education, communications, entertainment, shopping and commerce giant that it is today? Was it because of early so-called Net Neutrality? Well, of course not. In fact, most agree that the internet is what it is precisely because the government did NOT interfere.

It did not regulate, oversee, act as traffic cop or playground teacher. For the government, it was strictly, HANDS OFF. And we created the freest and fair marketplace in history, allowing consumers to choose the winners and losers in a competitive marketplace.

This resulted in the best ideas, products and services rising to the top. The internet thrived, business competition soared. New business opportunities became possible, think eBay, VRBO, Amazon, the list is endless. Everyone benefitted because the playing field was level. Anyone could come. And everyone DID come.

The internet became a place where anyone could do virtually anything and make money. Free speech abounded. Every viewpoint was clamoring to be heard. Suddenly, people of both sides of the political fence began coming up with ways and ideas to silence those on the OTHER side of the fence. Lots of ideas were floated including an internet �use tax� or licensing websites the same way they license radio and TV stations.
What's the "Net Neutrality" fight really about?

A few years ago, someone cooked up a coined phrase �Net Neutrality.� Who couldn�t be for a neutral internet? It played especially well with recent college graduates, ahhh the Millennials, who were not around for the beginning of the internet to be firsthand witnesses of how its level playing field grew from nothing.

The fight over net neutrality was never about a level digital playing field, although that�s what its advocates continue to claim. Its real purpose was to prohibit something called �paid prioritization.� Paid prioritization is the technical term used to describe an agreement between a content provider and a network owner to allow the provider�s data to travel on less-congested routes in exchange for an agreed-upon fee.

When networks are clogged with data during high-traffic times, prioritization agreements allow consumers to receive requested data faster. Netflix and other high-volume content providers have already begun negotiating such deals. All kinds of data including emails, cat videos, that Instagram photo of your sandwich, travel over the internet but some data types are more tolerant of delays or temporary congestion.

For instance, the bits comprising an email don�t need to arrive at a recipient�s computer all in the same order they were sent. Other kinds of data, primarily video, are less tolerant of delays. Receiving the data bits in the wrong order or at the wrong time can cause distortions, stutters and other playback problems.
You get what you pay for

If they choose to do so, content companies like Hulu and Netflix can choose to pay ISPs a little bit extra to have their content bits delivered to consumers faster than some other company, such as Amazon. Very NOT neutral, but necessary.

To prohibit it harms consumers in the name of helping them. Lost in the translation is this inconvenient fact: We�ve always had to pay for faster service! If you wanted faster service, you had to buy more bandwidth. Net Neutrality�s real name was FCC 15-24, a radical departure from the market-oriented policies that have served us so well for the last two decades.

Did we have evidence that the internet is not open? No. Did we discover some problem with our prior interpretation of the law? No. What happened was that despite 25 years of working just fine, the former FCC wanted to help large content providers like Amazon, Google, Twitter and Netflix gain leverage against traditional cable companies. So-called net neutrality would have prevented upgrading for better service.

ISPs would have been forced to treat all data alike, ignoring the different needs of the various kinds of data traveling over the internet. It stuck your favorite Netflix stream on the same slow road as your least-favorite email from work.

It would have prevented the data you want from getting to you when you want it and how you want it. Under the benign-sounding �Net Neutrality� campaign, BIG TECH companies like Google, Amazon, Yahoo would be able to censor the internet to suit their ideological preferences, ridding the internet of conservative and libertarian content.
Google's role in it all

Google was especially vested, as the tech giant helped write the 2015 net neutrality rules and Google, YouTube, Amazon, Twitter, Snapchat, Facebook and the others were trying to assume a kind of moral high-ground, to control the flow of data.

�Net Neutrality� would have given the Federal Government and big tech the power to choose winners and losers online, in an egregiously partisan manner. �Net Neutrality� said nothing about neutrality and everything about governmental control and nepotistic picking of favorites, which is the very opposite of neutrality.

Wow, your pulling a Kellyanne CONway here. Net neutrality has existed since the beginning of the internet. It's one of the principles that made the internet. It's the reason some guy with a connection could start a little site like craigslist . It was codified into law as BROADCAST tried to usurp the internet and treat it like Cable. It is NOT an  entertainment broadcast medium. Net neutrality was not some how coined by millennial hipsters. It's an issue that has been around long, long before 2015.
We're the big wigs of the industry at the table when the law was negotiated? Of course, fighting tooth and nail to dilute its protections to our free speech.

The last paragraph in your post is pure broadcast propaganda.  Id like to see an attempt at a logical defense of this statement

Mostly, I want to put to rest the notion that net neutrality started in 2015. It's been there since the beginning. The law was written to protect the internet from unbridled capitalism and crooked government officials.

The only reason this happened was that the wannabe oligarch orangutan simply HAS to undo everything the previous POTUS did and if he can enrich his fellow kleptogarchs and screw the small guy, all the better. Of course this would benefit  Trumps aspirations to start a broadcast company when he leaves office. Allot of favors to be paid by the broadcast industry.

P.S. Alex....keep up the good fight. Never forget Aaron Swartz (I wonder how many of you arguing against net neutrality know who he was)

Sent from my SM-P550 using Tapatalk

Thanks for chiming in, Lost Anchovy and Sharky! Well said, and I completely agree.

And thanks to the rest of you, too, for sharing your opinions and keeping this discussion friendly and civilized even though we might not all agree.

Happy Holidays, ya'll!

Cheers!

~Alex

Aside from the warm fuzzy feeling that conservatives might get while they watch Obama-era consumer protections get repealed... Can any of you come up with an actual, concrete, tangible/quantifiable benefit to repealing net neutrality rules that doesn't rely on wild assumptions about the moral character of telecom CEOs?

I honestly want to know.

Do you use netflix? Have comcast?
Go use the Netflix app thru your comcast box. How fast was it loading compared to your "regular" internet?
Slow huh?

That's what your Internet will be like. Netflix is throttled just a tad, that pushes you to comcast offers as you don't want to wait.

Aside from the warm fuzzy feeling that conservatives might get while they watch Obama-era consumer protections get repealed... Can any of you come up with an actual, concrete, tangible/quantifiable benefit to repealing net neutrality rules that doesn't rely on wild assumptions about the moral character of telecom CEOs?

I honestly want to know.

Do you use netflix? Have comcast?
Go use the Netflix app thru your comcast box. How fast was it loading compared to your "regular" internet?
Slow huh?

That's what your Internet will be like. Netflix is throttled just a tad, that pushes you to comcast offers as you don't want to wait.

I don’t have Comcast. Just Hulu Plus, Netflix, and Amazon Prime. (I can’t stand commercials... so I don’t pay to watch them.)

I’d be curious to hear what other people find if they try your little experiment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Aside from the warm fuzzy feeling that conservatives might get while they watch Obama-era consumer protections get repealed... Can any of you come up with an actual, concrete, tangible/quantifiable benefit to repealing net neutrality rules that doesn't rely on wild assumptions about the moral character of telecom CEOs?

I honestly want to know.

Do you use netflix? Have comcast?
Go use the Netflix app thru your comcast box. How fast was it loading compared to your "regular" internet?
Slow huh?

That's what your Internet will be like. Netflix is throttled just a tad, that pushes you to comcast offers as you don't want to wait.

I don’t have Comcast. Just Hulu Plus, Netflix, and Amazon Prime. (I can’t stand commercials... so I don’t pay to watch them.)

I’d be curious to hear what other people find if they try your little experiment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You can test it yourself.  You don't need a netflix subscription.

https://qz.com/688033/netflix-launched-this-handy-speed-test-so-you-can-go-shame-your-internet-provider/

Under the new rules the ISP would have to disclose throttling or face fines.

Well, it’s a good day to be a corporation or a wealthy stockholder. The rest of us? Good luck...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, it’s a good day to be a corporation or a wealthy stockholder. The rest of us? Good luck...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

After all all those rich people stash their money under a rock. They don't invest in business. They don't hire people. They don't spend money. They don't spend millions of dollars creating spacex who's efforts could eventually be the saving grace of humanity. They're just all evil greedy bastards. Why is this side of the equation invisible to so many people? When money/power/energy is concentrated it can be used to do great things, both good or evil. When money/power/energy is diluted or spread so thin its almost nothing it is too weak to do anything  with. Worry more about how to direct the power for good rather than trying to destroy the power or rather putting the power in the hands of elected or appointed people that have never shown an ability to create great things.

Well, itÂ’s a good day to be a corporation or a wealthy stockholder. The rest of us? Good luck...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

After all all those rich people stash their money under a rock. They don't invest in business. They don't hire people. They don't spend money. They don't spend millions of dollars creating spacex who's efforts could eventually be the saving grace of humanity. They're just all evil greedy bastards. Why is this side of the equation invisible to so many people? When money/power/energy is concentrated it can be used to do great things, both good or evil. When money/power/energy is diluted or spread so thin its almost nothing it is too weak to do anything  with. Worry more about how to direct the power for good rather than trying to destroy the power or rather putting the power in the hands of elected or appointed people that have never shown an ability to create great things.

Corporations are ALREADY making record profits, and the stock market is already at record highs. They didn’t need the extra handout, in my opinion. Also, evidence from the past (and direct word from some of their mouths) indicates they’ll be using the extra money to pay down debts and buy back shares of stock. That will help stockholders and likely increase stock prices, but it’s not likely to put any more money into the pockets of lower and middle class Americans like you (I assume) and I. The vast majority of economists agree.  Hell, the majority of Americans agree, too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I can not wait to read about the new tax bill.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I can not wait to read about the new tax bill.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's winter time discussion .....